Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned. I use VMWare
>>> extensively
>>> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things
>>> related
>>> to that as well. The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare
>>> Server
>>> as it's virtualization platform.
>>>
>>> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project
>>> with what
>>> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
>>
>> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has
>> one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not
>> quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in
>> either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit
>> harder than on Unix platforms.
>
> yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
> random thoughts might include:
> *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel
> c compiler)
> *) recent netbsd/amd64
> *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio
> *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris?
> *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all

I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts.

>
> though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good
>
>>
>> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
>> especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.
>
> there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms that might be a
> win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893