On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:11:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2019-Jan-22, Andres Freund wrote: >> Largely because I think it's an independent patch from the CXXOPT need >> from Christopher / Debian packaging. It's a larger patch, that needs >> more docs etc. If whoever applies that wants to backpatch it - I'm not >> going to protest, I just wouldn't myself, unless somebody pipes up that >> it'd help them. > > Ah, I see. No arguments against.
Thanks Andres and Alvaro for the input. No issues with the way of Andres proposes. The new PGXS flags would be I think useful to make sure that things for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS get propagated without having to hijack the original flags, so I can handle that part. Which one would be wanted though? - PG_CXXFLAGS - PG_LDFLAGS - PG_CFLAGS I'd see value in all of them, still everybody has likely a different opinion, so I would not mind discarding the ones are not thought as that much useful. New PGXS infrastructure usually finds only its way on HEAD, so I'd rather not back-patch that part. No issues with the back-patch portion for CXXOPT from me as that helps Debian. Thanks, -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
