Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 06:43:29 Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Actually, further investigation discloses that someone broke the no-Perl defense in psql's makefile back in 8.0, and we hadn't noticed till now. Don't we ship sql_help.h in the

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-24 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: Yeah, but the makefile protected that with ifdef PERL, which stopped failing as intended when someone forced some quotes into the value of PERL. I'm about to commit something that hopefully will be a bit more robust. So one would have only seen the

[HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Robert Haas
I'm a bit confused as to what we're trying to support. While I was poking around tonight, I notice that we have both ./src/backend/utils/Gen_fmgrtab.sh and ./src/backend/utils/Gen_fmgrtab.pl, ostensibly because: # The reason for implementing this functionality twice is that we don't # require

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'm a bit confused as to what we're trying to support. You are not supposed to need perl to build from a release tarball (except on Windows which doesn't have a decent make or shell, so we depend on perl instead). You do need it to build from a CVS

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: I'm a bit confused as to what we're trying to support. You are not supposed to need perl to build from a release tarball (except on Windows which doesn't have a decent make or shell,

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: So, is our policy that it's OK to use perl to generate things, as long as they are things that are architecture-independent and configuration-independent therefore could be pregenerated for the release tarball? If so, it seems we might be able to punt

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Actually, further investigation discloses that someone broke the no-Perl defense in psql's makefile back in 8.0, and we hadn't noticed till now. So it certainly seems to be the case that nobody associated with the Postgres project works in a Perl-free environment.

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Actually, further investigation discloses that someone broke the no-Perl defense in psql's makefile back in 8.0, and we hadn't noticed till now. Don't we ship sql_help.h in the tarball? I thought that's all the perl was used for in

Re: [HACKERS] building without perl

2009-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Actually, further investigation discloses that someone broke the no-Perl defense in psql's makefile back in 8.0, and we hadn't noticed till now. Don't we ship sql_help.h in the tarball? I thought