Re: remove dead ports?

On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:59:54AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work? Not
> > actual testing, I assume.
>
> There were either essential pieces missing (e.g., no shared library
> support, or no Makefile.port), or we had received reports in the past
> the platform doesn't work and won't be fixed anymore by the original
> supporter.
>
> > 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
>
> irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably
> their time is up.

Good question. SCO seems risky, but irix and osf are very possible. I
would ask about all three on general. You probably have to give it more
time because we don't know as much about the usage as we did about bsdi.
We have to wrap this up before beta so it will be tight.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +