Re: Time to upgrade buildfarm coverage for some EOL'd OSes?

On 2021-10-08 00:15, Thomas Munro wrote:

> I noticed that for NetBSD we only have one animal, and it's running
> EOL'd release 7. To give decent visibility of relevant portability
> problems it'd be nice to have one of the current supported releases[1]
> in there. CC'ing owner; any interest in updating this animal to 9.x?

Yes, it's getting long in the tooth. I will upgrade the NetBSD 7
(sidewinder) to 9.2.

> For FreeBSD the situation is better, we have HEAD (bleeding edge 14),
> 13.x, and then loach running 10.3 which is dead. Given that 12.x and
> 13.x are supported[2] (well, 11.4 is just about done), perhaps it'd
> make sense to cover 12.x rather than 10.x?

And I will also upgrade loach to 12.x if that's the version that is
needed the most.

> I don't know too much about DragonflyBSD, but I happened to be
> surveying operating systems we support (by the "it's in the build farm
> so we're going to keep it green" definition) in the context of some
> AIO work, and I learned that they'd ripped the native AIO support out
> of this one at some point, which caused me to focus on the versions.
> Animal conchuela is running 4.4 (2016) while 6.0 is current[3].
> Again, if we're going to have one example of a rare OS that someone
> cares about, I think it'd be useful to have a current one?

I will upgrade conchuela to DragonFlyBSD 6.0.

> For OpenBSD we have the current[4] and previous major releases
> covered, so that's cool, and then there's a 5.9 system, which is long
> dead and could probably be put to better use, but at least we don't
> lack coverage there.

I will remove the 5.9 (curculio) and upgrade the 6.5 (morepork) to 6.9.

Would these changes be acceptable?

/Mikael