On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:37 PM Steve Dower firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 18Jun2019 1025, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Oleg Broytman writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, email@example.com
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target.
Sure, but (a) it's a good bet, and (b) somebody downloading to install on a different machine is more likely to know what they're doing and be conscious of issues of platform.
Equally, someone more conscious of the issues will know to go and get the 64-bit version if they explicitly want it. But for practically everyone the 32-bit version will be just fine.
There's no definitive answer to this, which means regardless of which decision we make we will have to continue to explain it over and over again. Right now, status quo and the lack of a volunteer to update the web site means that sticking with the 32-bit link is easier to explain than having to figure out why a particular machine was offered a particular download when it is not correct.
I just posted a webmaster reply about just such an inquiry. As one of the people who get to do the explaining, it would be nice if we (not the devs) could figure out some way of getting people to the download they want.
The lack of volunteers to update the web site content is disappointing, but a fact of open source life. Personally I'd have thought that the PSF was now spending enough on infrastructure that it might be able to afford someone to maintain the content - especially those areas that most impact the dev team. I imagine some assistance for release managers would also be helpful.
Is it worth trying to make this happen?