Message-ID: <52536737.7060006@dunslane.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 22:00:23 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: cedric@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Bugfix and new feature for PGXS
References: <201306181552.36673.cedric@2ndquadrant.com>
 <51DB171F.2090108@dunslane.net> <201307122350.23726.cedric@2ndquadrant.com>
 <1739933.FyLmpy7Q73@obelix> <5248B32E.1090001@dunslane.net>
 <1381193255.25702.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
In-Reply-To: <1381193255.25702.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 10/07/2013 08:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-29 at 19:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 04:04 AM, C=C3=A9dric Villemain wrote:
>>>> Simple one, attached.
>>>> I didn't document USE_VPATH, not sure how to explain that clearly.
>>> Just a remember that the doc is written and is waiting to be commited.
>>>
>>> There is also an issue spoted by Christoph with the installdirs prerequ=
isite,
>>> the attached patch fix that.
>>>
>> I applied this one line version of the patch, which seemed more elegant
>> than the later one supplied.
>>
>> I backpatched that and the rest of the VPATH changes for extensiuons to
>> 9.1 where we first provided for extensions, so people can have a
>> reasonably uniform build system for their extensions.
> I suspect this line
>
> submake-libpq: $(libdir)/libpq.so ;
>
> will cause problems on platforms with a different extension (e.g. OS X).
>
> Given that this supposedly small and noninvasive set of changes has
> caused a number of problems already, I suggest we revert this entire
> thing until we have had time to actually test it somewhere other than in
> the the stable branches.  As it stands, it is a new feature being
> developed in the stable branches, which is clearly not acceptable.

If you want to revert it then go ahead, but the last statement is simply=20
incorrect. The code has been sitting in HEAD for several months, and I=20
committed on the back branches because it was wanted.

cheers

andrew


--=20
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers