| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 16:21:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20120503162117.GH21098@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:11:47PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2012-05-03 at 10:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Having received no replies on "general" from bsdi users considering
> > upgrading to 9.2, I have removed the port.
>
> I think that was quite premature. There is no requirement that bsdi
> users need to read pgsql-general, especially if you give them only a 24
> hour notice. The bsdi port still appears to work, and it doesn't cost
> us anything to maintain it, so I think we should keep it, or at least
> have a longer grace period.
I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user
in the past 5-7 years. The last official release was in 2003/2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD/OS
I rather think I kept it a viable port on my own, and can't anymore.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 16:25:41 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-03 16:12:09 | Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken |