Re: remove dead ports?

On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On fre, 2012-05-04 at 18:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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
>
> Possibly. What exactly is the difference between the "sco" and
> "unixware" ports, anyway? The one buildfarm member we have running
> SCO software (koi) chooses the unixware template.

Unixware was based on Unix System Labs System V, Release 4, while SCO
was based on a 286 port of SVr2, or something like that. Both were
produced by SCO, though Novell was also involved with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnixWare

> > irix and osf support was already dropped in Python 3.0, so probably
> > their time is up.
>
> Yeah, been a long time since I heard of either.

Yep.

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

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