Hi, On 2022-09-01 22:34:07 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 4) We include the date, excluding 0 for some mysterious reason, in the > > version > > number. This seems to unnecessarily contribute to making the build not > > reproducible. Hails from long ago: > > > > commit 9af932075098bd3c143993386288a634d518713c > > Author: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > > Date: 2004-12-19 02:16:31 +0000 > > > > Add Win32 version stamps that increment each day for proper SYSTEM32 > > DLL pginstaller installs. > > > > This is obviously far too long ago for me to *actually* remember, but I > think the idea was to make it work with snapshot installers. As they would > only replace the binary if the version number was newer, so for snapshots > it would be useful to have it always upgrade.
Does any installer actually behave that way? Seems very doubtful. > 5) We have a PGFILEDESC for (nearly?) every binary/library. They largely > > don't > > seem more useful descriptions than the binary's name. Why don't we just > > drop most of them and just set the description as something like > > "PostgreSQL $name (binary|library)"? I doubt anybody ever looks into > > these > > details except to perhaps check the version number or such. > > > > At least back in the days, a lot of software inventory programs would > scrape this information into corporate-wide databases to keep track of what > was in use across enterprises. I have no idea if people still do that or if > it's all just checksums+databases now, but that was one reason back in the > days to put it there. Think that still happens, although I suspect they care more about the vendor etc than about the description. And would likely care more if we signed build products etc... > But yes, setting the description per your suggestion would work equally > well for that, and would make things more consistent. I guess I'll come up with a patch then :( Greetings, Andres Freund
