Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?
Am Montag, 4. September 2006 03:57 schrieb Andrew Dunstan: Ah! Thanks! What had failed for me was just running with /path/to/old/autoconf - this one works however. Strange that a config package can't work out where its own installed files are. I had that fixed in Autoconf a while back for this very reason. It certainly works with 2.59 but apparently not in that older version. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?
I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those branches? If so, fixing the plpython problem I reported recently seems like too much work. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those branches? Yes. If so, fixing the plpython problem I reported recently seems like too much work. mkdir tmp cd tmp wget ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.53.tar.bz2 tar xjf autoconf-2.53.tar.bz2 cd autoconf-2.53 ./configure --prefix=$(cd .. pwd)/install make install cd .../pgsql .../tmp/install/bin/autoconf Not that much work. :) -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see that older back branches are still using version 2.53 of autoconf, rather than the 2.59 branch we have updated to for 8.1 and beyond. Does that mean I need to install version 2.53 if I want to update the config on those branches? Yup. We aren't changing back autoconf versions if we can help it --- too much risk of breakage. If so, fixing the plpython problem I reported recently seems like too much work. It's not a big problem if you install 'em into private subdirectories, eg I have autoconf-2.53 installed with --prefix = /usr/local/autoconf-2.53 and do PATH=/usr/local/autoconf-2.53/bin:$PATH autoconf when I need to update back-branch configure scripts. Ah! Thanks! What had failed for me was just running with /path/to/old/autoconf - this one works however. Strange that a config package can't work out where its own installed files are. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] autoconf version for back branches?
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: I do PATH=/usr/local/autoconf-2.53/bin:$PATH autoconf when I need to update back-branch configure scripts. Ah! Thanks! What had failed for me was just running with /path/to/old/autoconf - this one works however. Strange that a config package can't work out where its own installed files are. I see several different scripts in /usr/local/autoconf-2.53/bin, so likely the problem is that 'autoconf' just invokes the others as 'scriptname' and doesn't force an absolute path. I'm too lazy to check if this is still true in latest autoconf, but if so the FSF guys might accept a bug report. (Or they may have some weird reason why it's a feature not a bug. But in any case I'd be surprised if they risk making such a change in obsolete autoconf versions.) regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
