| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Date: | 2012-05-05 15:26:32 |
| Message-ID: | 12780.1336231592@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a
>> buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old
>> uncommon platform. Otherwise the apparent support is hollow. The BSDI
>> port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily,
>> but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it.
> Based on these emerging criteria, should we also remove the other
> platforms on my original "marginal" list?
> irix
> osf
> sco
Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and
"unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running
SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template.
> irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably
> their time is up.
Yeah, been a long time since I heard of either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-05 15:37:27 | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2012-05-05 13:27:14 | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? |