X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4128C9DCCB5; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:22:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38703-02; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:22:31 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A46C9DCAD1; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:22:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com (84-51-143-99.archon037.adsl.metronet.co.uk [84.51.143.99]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 2C2494403BB; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:06:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3CEFF1A; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:06:12 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <438ECB14.6020402@archonet.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:06:12 +0000 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Treat Cc: Magnus Hagander , "Marc G. Fournier" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org, Tom Lane , Andrew Dunstan Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7CAC@algol.sollentuna.se> <1133377185.4491.269.camel@camel> In-Reply-To: <1133377185.4491.269.camel@camel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/4 X-Sequence-Number: 8945 Robert Treat wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:33, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Someone suggested earlier that we should drop the binaries for >> nonsupported versions completely from the ftp site. Thoughts on this? >> >> If not, they should at least go into OLD as well. But personally, I'm >> for dropping them completely. If you're on something that old (heck, we >> have 7.0 binaries..), you can still build from source. >> > > I'm against the idea... the cost for us is minimal, and the hassle > involved in building from source is quite large. I don't have a need for an old PG binary. But when I have needed really old binaries it's always been in the middle of the night, in front of a machine with a teletype terminal, in the dark, surrounded by wolves while a timer ticks into the red... Locating the right versions of 17 different libraries and compiling from source is always my second choice. If it's practical to keep them, I'd like to suggest doing so. If it's not practical, could we have a where_to_find_old_versions.txt file and open a project on sourceforge to keep them? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd