Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > It would appear you have a conflict about whether MULTIBYTE is defined
> > or not --- the code thinks so, but the makefile does not, since
> > multibyte.o is not seen in the link command.
>
> > The identical technique is used in libpq's makefile, so I'm not sure
> > why you do not see a link failure in libpq as well.
>
> Hmmmm. Hiroshi committed an update to GNUmakefile to 'enable multibyte
> support' for ODBC. But that was only 33 hours ago -- meaning it wasn't
> updated in time for RC1. Lessee..... I'm rebuilding RC1 with Hiroshi's
> GNUmakefile change as part of the RPMset patch -- and it succeeds.
>
Oops I apologize for my mistake. I must have changed the
GNUmakefile when I committed multibyte support for ODBC.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
- [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Mike Cannon-Brookes
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Lamar Owen
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Lamar Owen
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Lamar Owen
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 RC1 RPM Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 RC1 RP... Lamar Owen
- [HACKERS] Re: 7.1 RC1 RP... Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Lamar Owen
- Re: [HACKERS] 7.1 RC1 RPM Lamar Owen