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

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)



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to