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?
Advertising
> 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
