Hi, On 2025-03-06 11:57:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 2025-03-06 Th 10:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > By the way, is there a particular reason why we're keeping Debian 7 > > coverage in the buildfarm? I don't want to be in a huge rush to kill > > platforms people still care about, but it was pointed out to me > > off-list that this is quite an old release -- it seems Debian 7 was > > first released in 2013, last released in 2016, EOL in 2018. I assume > > that not too many people are going to install a PostgreSQL release > > that comes out in 2025 on an OS that's been EOL for 7 years (or 12 > > years if the BF page is correct that this is actually Debian 7.0). > > Somewhat oddly, I see that we have coverage for Debian 9, 11, 12, and > > 13, but not 8 or 10. Is there a theory behind all of this or is the > > current situation somewhat accidental? > > Fairly accidental, I think. > > We do have a project at EDB at fill in certain gaps in buildfarm coverage, > so maybe we can reduce the incidence of such accidents.
I think the way to fix the gap is to drop the buildfarm animal running an OS that has been unsupported for 7 years / without security fixes for 9 years, not to add an animal running an OS that has been unsupported for 4 years / without security fixes for 6 years (i.e. Debian 8). Debian 9 has been out of support for 2 years / without security fixes for 4. Debian 10 is also out of LTS support, albeit more recently 30 June 2024 and has been out of security support for 2 1/2 years. Keeping this old stuff around is a burden on everyone that commits stuff and probably on some contributors too. I'd not necessarily fight hard to drop a perfectly working Debian 10 animal, but adding a new one at this point makes no sense whatsoever. Greetings, Andres
