"Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem I've got with Gentoo is that it encourages homegrown builds
>> with randomly-chosen options and compiler switches.
> It encourages it, but it certainly doesn't require it. Knowing that this is a
> NOC machine, I don't think there's going to be a lot of fiddling with custom
Does gentoo these days have binary packages? source packages do implicitly
require custom builds because even if you don't fiddle with compiler switches
or other options you end up with a different build than someone who had a
different set of libraries installed when they installed it.
>> That would tend to make me vote for RHEL/Centos, where long-term stability is
>> an explicit development goal. Debian stable might do too, though I'm not as
>> clear about their update criteria as I am about Red Hat's.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Debian but even with that I think for this
situation I would actually agree that Redhat is a better fit in that it's
"canonical". You can tell someone else install Redhat vFoo and know they'll
have precisely the same set of packages with the same set of services running.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-07-25 21:20:12|
|Subject: Re: strange buildfarm failure on lionfish|
|Previous:||From: Gavin M. Roy||Date: 2007-07-25 20:49:59|
|Subject: Re: Machine available for community use|