On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 2018-03-23 14:54:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > So I see somebody at 2ndQ has set up a bunch of ppc64le buildfarm > > members, which I applaud. But they're all failing on the 9.3 branch, > > because we lack support for that architecture in that branch. > > > > Does anyone have the stomach for trying to add such support? The minimum > > requirement would be to back-patch 9.4's config.guess and config.sub, > > because that's where the builds are falling over right now. I wouldn't > be > > too afraid of that, but what is not clear is what portability issues > might > > be lurking beyond that. I could not find any specific mention of ppc64 > > in the git changelogs, but that doesn't mean there weren't any other 9.4 > > fixes that might need to be back-ported. > > > > It's hard to justify putting in very much effort to add new-platform > > support in a branch that's scheduled to die in six months, so I'm not > > sure what to do. Should we just tell 2ndQ not to bother running those > > animals on 9.3? Or should we make at least a bit of effort towards > > making it work? > > > The compromise I'm inclined to offer is to see what happens if we > > back-patch 9.4's config.guess and config.sub. If that makes these > > animals go green, and doesn't break any others, we'll call it good. > > Otherwise, we revert that change and say we're not putting any > > additional effort into it. > > I'm inclined to just ask them to stop running the animals on that > branch. There are no pre-existing users on 9.3 ppc64le, and new > customers hopefully won't move to 9.3. ISTM backpatching is riskier than > just changing a bunch of buildfarm configurations. > > +1 for dropping it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
