Re: remove dead ports? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: remove dead ports?
Date
Msg-id 12780.1336231592@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: remove dead ports?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: remove dead ports?
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: remove dead ports?