| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Date: | 2012-05-05 16:08:00 |
| Message-ID: | 13515.1336234080@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO
> was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that.
Oh, so the "sco" port actually refers to OpenServer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer
That page makes it sound like it's more or less as current as Unixware,
since both had their last updates in 2008/2009 timeframe (and both
are presumably never going to see another one, with SCO the company
being dead in all but name).
The difference from our perspective is that we have a buildfarm member
running Unixware, whereas it's anybody's guess whether the "sco" port
still works or not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-05-05 16:23:54 | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-05 15:49:37 | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? |