Am Samstag, 24. November 2007 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
Peter, were you going to address this?
It's done now.
diff -ur ../cvs-pgsql/configure.in ./configure.in
--- ../cvs-pgsql/configure.in 2007-11-16 21:25:10.0 +0100
+++ ./configure.in 2007-11-16 22:27:36.0 +0100
@@
Peter, were you going to address this?
---
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce's suggestion of somehow checking this in the top Makefile is
a possibility, but even better would be if creating configure from
Gregory Stark wrote:
Why is configure even checked in to CVS?
Right now you don't even need autoconf installed to build out of CVS. Do
we want to impose that as an extra requirement? And if we did it would
need to be the same one used to cut tarballs, or one provably compatible.
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) writes:
configure (r1.570 - r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570r2=1.571)
It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Yeah, I think it's a bit insane. Keeping a few Autoconf versions around
isn't
hard at all. We have been doing it for years. (Hint: ./configure; make;
make install)
Yeah.
I
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:32:13AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
Last time it was flex (or was it bison). This time autoconf (which I
beleive has happened before as well). It *will* happen again.
Just download autoconf, bison, flex
Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
I know right now we have
three different versions 'required', just can't recall which fall under
which ...
You just look into the files to see what was used last time.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Tom Lane:
[ digs for a moment... ] According to my notes we are using autoconf
2.53 for versions 7.3-8.0 and 2.59 for the later branches. So 2.13
is already out of the picture. It might be that 2.53 to 2.59 to 2.61
is not all that big a jump in reality,
Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
Last time it was flex (or was it bison). This time autoconf (which I
beleive has happened before as well). It *will* happen again.
Just download autoconf, bison, flex from GNU and do a source install. That
should cover the problem.
--
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build
the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to
whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then be given all the
required
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 17:44:52 + Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10:09 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of the
build if they have one.
you lost me on that one ... Tom is hestitant about moving to 6.1 because we
don't know what the fall out will be ... since I imagine the fallout would be
in the
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build
the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to
whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Tom Lane:
[ digs for a moment... ] According to my notes we are using autoconf
2.53 for versions 7.3-8.0 and 2.59 for the later branches. So 2.13
is already out of the picture. It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) writes:
configure (r1.570 - r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570r2=1.571)
It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some time. I'm a bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 20:49:04 -0800 Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61,
so
Magnus Hagander wrote:
So let's create a VM for just this?
This just moves the problem elsewhere: from use the right autoconf version
to use the right VM.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:40:31 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perhaps so, but it'd cost us a fair amount of up-front work to verify
that we don't break the back branches by updating their configure
scripts. Not something I want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10:09 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm really not
too sure what the functional incompatibilities between versions are,
but given the extent of line-by-line diffs I've seen in the output of
even
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build
the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to
whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then be given all the
required
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 11:10:09 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm really not
too sure what the functional incompatibilities between versions are,
but given the extent of line-by-line diffs I've seen
Dave Page wrote:
Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of
the build if they have one.
The problem here isn't really that we require a great testing and staging
procedure for introducing new autoconf versions. The issue at hand is
strictly that we shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 18:00:26 + Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of the
build if they have one.
you lost me on that one ... Tom is
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to have
drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...
If we do that, (I honestly don't know) what happens on versions that are
running an older
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are making a mountain out of a molehill here. We've managed to get
this right for years with very little fuss. Why make infrastructure to
handle a problem that is at most marginal? I have more pressing concerns
that building an autoconf step into
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
(And I share Tom's concern about version compatibility - the autoconf
team don't have a great record on that IIRC.)
Thats why I think it might be useful to keep an eye on what does and
doesn't work.
I agree it's not a major issue though, so if it's non-trivial to
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 18:00:26 + Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Maybe the BF members could just run their default autoconf as part of the
build if they have one.
you lost me
Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...
Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...
Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce's suggestion of somehow checking this in the top Makefile is
a possibility, but even better would be if creating configure from
configure.in failed outright. We have an AC_PREREQ in there that
fails if autoconf is too old, but can we tighten it to also complain
if too
Dave Page wrote:
Just curious, but isn't that something the buildfarm would be good
for? generate/commit a 6.1 version of configure, and see if any of
hte buildfarm environments break ... or am I missing something
'post-install' that could be affected?
Maybe the BF members could just
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce's suggestion of somehow checking this in the top Makefile is
a possibility, but even better would be if creating configure from
configure.in failed outright. We have an AC_PREREQ in there that
fails if autoconf is too old, but
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build
the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to
whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then be given all the
required autoconf versions, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61, so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...
- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 23:37:22 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc G. Fournier) writes:
configure (r1.570 - r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570r2=1.571)
It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61, so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...
I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...
Sincerely,
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 20:49:04 -0800 Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore,
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...
Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...
Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
update back-branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 21:21:59 -0800 Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to
have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...
Well, easiest is for Tom to run
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.
That would be a good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:40:31 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Either that or we try to move up all
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61,
so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...
Done
regards, tom lane
---(end of
42 matches
Mail list logo
