Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
>   
>>> Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected promptly.
>>> That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known about 
>>> the problem
>>> within a couple days at most.  Seems like the Windows members of the
>>> buildfarm don't run often enough.  The whole point of the buildfarm is
>>> to spot problems while the code is still fresh in mind, no?
>>>       
>
>   
>> I think that speaks for the current usage of the cygwin port. Snake runs
>> native builds daily, but like Magnus and his dev box there's no way I'm
>> letting Cygwin anywhere near it. Istr that the only vaguely active
>> Cygwin member is Andrew's laptop.
>>     
>
> Well, "lack of interest" is certainly adequate reason to decommission a
> port.  If we can't find anyone who cares enough about Cygwin to host a
> regularly-scheduled buildfarm member, I'm for blowing it off.
>
>   

We used to have a couple of Cygwin boxes doing regular buildfarm runs. I 
don't recall why Jim Buttafuoco stopped running ferret.

I have a shiny new set of components just waiting for me to put them 
together in a machine. Sudden trips to Australia  and bouts of ill 
health have delayed this process far beyond what I wanted. My intention 
is to put a couple of VMs on this box, one of which will be Windows, and 
will run buildfarm regularly. Of course, if someone wanted to donate a 
nice machine, either hosted by me or somewhere else, that would 
shortcircuit things :-)

Anyway, the lack of daily Cygwin builds is not permanent.

There are several supported platforms not represented on the buildfarm - 
e.g. the one HPUX member has never actually reported any results.

cheers

andrew