On 06/27/2014 08:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2014-06-27 13:12:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I don't personally object to dropping Alpha, but when this was >>> discussed back in October, Stefan did: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52616373.10...@kaltenbrunner.cc > > As an ex-packager I do not believe the argument that it will matter > to packagers if we desupport one of their secondary architectures. > There are many, many packages that have never claimed to work on > oddball architectures at all. Packagers would be better served > by honesty about what we can support.
yeah I guess so - I was mostly pointing out that alpha looked like to be a way more "active" platform than most of what was discussed in that thread. I personally dont think that continuing to support alpha will buy us anything... > >> Ah, right. I still am in favor of dropping it because I don't it is >> likely to work, but, as a compromise, we could remove only the Tru64 >> variant? Openbsd + gcc is much less of a hassle. > >>> But I think he's rather in the minority anyway. > >> Looks like it. > > There would be value in continuing to support Alpha if we had one > in the buildfarm. We don't, and have not had in any recent memory, > and I haven't noticed anyone offering to provide one in future. > > The actual situation is that we're shipping a "port" that most > likely doesn't work, and we have no way to fix it. That's of > no benefit to anyone. yeah I dont have access to any alpha hardware to provide a buildfarm box so I cant "help" there :( Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers