Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> One difficulty was generating a new version of libpq.rc at the proper >>> time. I added a prepdist rule just like *.def. I also added code so >>> every time you do a 'make clean' or distclean it does a 'touch' on >>> libpq.rc.in so libpq.rc is rebuilt on the next compile. That seemed >>> like the cleanest solution. >> >> ... except CVS will not like it at all. Why don't you just remove the >> libpq.rc file instead?
> I am going to remove libpq.rc from CVS because it is now a derived file > from libpq.rc.in. I don't remove via 'clean' because if someone wants > to build VC or BCC and Win32 with the same tarball then once they do a > 'clean' they can't do a VC or BCC compile anymore. > Does that answer your question? Not in the least. What I'm complaining about is that you can't simply "touch" a file that is under CVS control; CVS will think it's been modified. Perhaps it would work to make libpq.rc depend on both libpq.rc.in and src/Makefile.global; then any re-configure would force it to be rebuilt. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster