Re: Include ppc64le build type for back branches

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sandeep Thakkar <sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Include ppc64le build type for back branches
Date: 2015-12-08 18:06:45
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa1hsbk5VH467KO5AYWzdpH1N2Xmn_3M-fATQ8_ZG+zXw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> So, config.guess should be changed to include the build type for ppc64le
>>> like it is in 9.4+ branches.
>>
>> So far as I can tell from a quick troll of the git history, we have never
>> ever updated config.guess/config.sub in released branches. I'm a bit
>> hesitant to do it in this case either: it would amount to retroactively
>> adding support for a platform, which sure sounds like a new feature.
>>
>> My vote would be to adjust your buildfarm critter to only try to build
>> 9.4 and up.
>>
>
> Or put what he said works in his critter's build-farm.conf in the
> config_opts section, something like:
>
> --build=powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu

I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but is the
reason we haven't updated config.guess and config.sub in the past that
it presents an actual stability risk, or just that nobody's asked
before? Because the first one is a good reason not to do it now, but
the second one isn't.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2015-12-08 18:07:50 fix for readline terminal size problems when window is resized with open pager
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-12-08 18:05:03 Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work