Re: remove dead ports?

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2012-05-03 at 17:39 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user
> > > in the past 5-7 years.
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume
> > that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that
> > there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to
> > support their operating system for 8 years after the original
> > proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port
> > that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased
> > support in release branches.
>
> I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about
> the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known
> to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of
> discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24
> hours notice.

Not sure where you got 24 hours:

Tues http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00061.php
Wed http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-05/msg00060.php
Thur http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2012-05/msg00023.php

Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and
I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before
I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked.

If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the
patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the
answer, everyone's work will take more time.

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

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