Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8ED2E0262 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:29:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83472-03 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:29:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333D12E008E for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:29:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0VHT6H3009863; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:06 -0500 (EST) To: "Christopher Browne" cc: "Peter Eisentraut" , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Supported platforms list In-reply-to: References: <200801301215.20367.peter_e@gmx.net> <14566.1201715578@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200801302259.42587.peter_e@gmx.net> Comments: In-reply-to "Christopher Browne" message dated "Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:53:02 +0000" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:29:05 -0500 Message-ID: <9862.1201800545@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/53 X-Sequence-Number: 4782 "Christopher Browne" writes: > Attached is a patch. > I have changed the discussion to focus on the buildfarm process, and > it should be recognized that this does change the "shape" of how this > section recognizes platforms as being "supported." This is exactly *not* what I wanted to do, as it removes all traces of knowledge about which platforms are likely to work (or not work) despite not being represented in the current buildfarm. It also seems a bit silly to copy-and-paste today's buildfarm roster into static documentation. I think citing the buildfarm as the latest authority, and encouraging people to join it, is a fine thing. But a mass delete of older info doesn't seem appropriate IMHO. > This has the conspicuous effect that a number of platforms fall off > the list, notably: > - Red Hat > - Slackware > - HP/UX > - Irix Can't speak to Slackware or Irix, but IMHO Fedora and HP/UX deserve to remain listed because I do development/testing work on them every day. I don't feel a need to run an explicit buildfarm member on my machines too ;-). There are probably a few other platforms that are similarly used by other key developers --- I don't see any indication that Bruce is running a buildfarm member on whichever-BSD-he-uses, for instance. regards, tom lane