Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> On 07.03.25 10:02, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The fact that the compiler itself cannot be changed (say from gcc to
>> clang, which you appear to be trying to do for sidewinder) appears to be
>> on purpose. I suppose you should submit a new request and abandon the
>> old animal name, if you wanted to make such a conversion. (I don't
>> necessarily agree with this view of things, but it's how it is at
>> present.)
> yeah, I think this whole area could do with some rethinking - it is
> _very_ common for people upgrading operating systems or even running
> operating systems that are doing a continous upgrade thing.
The idea is that switching to a whole new OS or compiler really does
result in a different animal, which should have a different name to
reduce confusion. (I didn't make this decision, but it seems
reasonable to me.) Upgrades are fine, but those should only be
moving the version numbers.
> ... ideally I would expect the buildfarm itself to update the OS and
> compiler version - what we have now is basically always outdated and wrong.
Yeah, ideally we would not bother with the manual labeling of
versions. I know how to scrape compiler versions out of the
build logs, and I always do that when I am interested in
compiler versions, rather than trusting the labels. But it's
much harder to identify OS version from the build logs ...
regards, tom lane
