On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:37:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Am Freitag, 20. Juli 2007 13:28 schrieb Patrick Welche: > >> Also, why did postgresql choose not to use automake? > > > The was never such a choice made. > > According to the archives, it was brought up a couple times around the > 1999-2000 time frame, but no one ever made a case that it'd be worth the > pain of changing over. At the time, we had subprojects in the tree with > their own configure/build systems (odbc, libpqxx) and I think > automake-ification was considered a way to try to clean that situation > up. But now it's been resolved by kicking the subprojects out again, > and so I don't really see that automake has much to offer us.
OK - I was just playing with that libxml2 problem with a test project, and somehow the linking went correctly and used the right flags. It seems (not tested to the extremes) that I just got "do the right thing with libxml2.la" for free (i.e., use libtool --mode=link) just by having used automake. (I'll look at that a bit more to make sure.) Also, what was the danger with linking pthread? (I do see a --with-threads add multithread support(on) switch to turn it off in libxml2) Cheers, Patrick ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq