Re: Linux for S/390 Patches
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Linux for S/390 Patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0011171716420.789-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Linux for S/390 Patches (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-ports |
Thomas Lockhart writes: > > I have used the latest snapshot to create the following patches to provide > > support for Linux on S/390. As you can see the additions are trivial. The ^^^^^ > > build went without a hitch. > We list platforms by "OS" and "Processor". What would be the correct > entries for S/390? Presumably S/390 is the processor, but I'm not > familiar with how IBM does their labeling... About that list: We need to define a new primary key for it. For example, "Linux 2.2.x" is wildly inaccurate. Red Hat probably works, but maybe Caldera won't (true story). Maybe 2.2.16-suse-patches works but 2.2.14 won't (true story). The glibc version is probably equally (if not more) important as the kernel version. So in matters Linux I think we need to list the name and version of the distribution as it shows on the box. We also need to keep track of the compiler used. I've had situations where gcc 2.8.1 didn't work on an otherwise normal Linux box. We've also listed Solaris as supported although it was provably impossible to build PostgreSQL with the native compiler. I'd suggest a couple of concrete points to watch for before the upcoming release: 1. Use the config.guess output as the primary way to index supported platforms. This will make maintaining the build system much easier. 2. If there are several vendors that ship this system, also record the name by which you'd ask for your system in the store. 3. If you didn't use the compiler (or other binutils) that came with your system, record that. 4. Only list as supported actual systems from which you have actual reports, no "3.x". -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-ports по дате отправления: