Re: Include ppc64le build type for back branches

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> With respect to this particular thing, it's hard for me to imagine
> that anything will go wrong on ppcle that we wouldn't consider a
> back-patchable fix, so there might be no harm in adjusting
> config.guess and config.sub.

FWIW, I also suspect that supporting ppc64le would not really take
much more than updating config.guess/config.sub; there's no evidence
in the git logs that we had to fix anything else in the newer branches.

My concern here is about establishing project policy about whether
we will or won't consider back-patching support for newer platforms.
I think that the default answer should be "no", and I'd like to
see us set down some rules about what it takes to override that.

Obviously, setting up a buildfarm member helps a good deal. But
is that sufficient, or necessary?

> I'm not sure in any case that I'd endorse the view that whatever
> config.guess has heard of, we support.

config.guess support is a necessary but certainly not sufficient
condition.

regards, tom lane