Re: minimum Meson version
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-06-18T07:35:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 at 07:38, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > That's probably ok for developers, but then again, probably no one > develops PostgreSQL master on RHEL 8. But production RPM builds need to > be done "in system", with the build tools being provided by > vendor-supplied RPMs themselves, with all the signatures, attestations, > and all that stuff that comes with it nowadays. Okay, so maybe pip install is not what they want. But they could still create a recent ninja & meson RPM themselves right. I assume they know how to do that, because they'd need to do the same for PostgreSQL too if they care about all the things you mentioned. And what I just don't understand about this whole discussion: We're talking about people who want to be frozen in time for 5 years straight during this "maintenance support" window by the vendor (whom they are paying), with only access to security fixes. But somehow they do want to run the latest Postgres Major release, even though the one that they had running still receives bug fixes and security fixes. I just don't understand who these people are. Why do they care about having no changes to their system to avoid breakage as much as possible, except for their piece of primary database software, of which they're happily running the bleeding edge.
Commits
-
meson: Increase minimum version to 0.57.2
- f039c2244110 19 (unreleased) landed
-
meson: Fix meson warning
- 629cc1623168 16.10 landed
- 2499c3490b2f 17.6 landed
- 2c0d8b95080e 18.0 landed