Stuart, can you fix to `Apache 2.0` before commit if it was possible?

Base gcc can't build this. From issues on github recommended to use higher 
version of gcc compiler. So ports-gcc should be used.

REGRESS_CHECKS disabled by default in PostgreSQL. As I know, it's external 
program for PostgreSQL which never builds by default with PGSQL. So to build 
TimescaleDB should be performed w/ REGRESS_CHECKS=OFF to clean build.

Martin

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:40 PM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> On 2020/08/05 21:20, Martin wrote:
>
> > TimescaleDB plugin tested with PostgreSQL 12.2 server by making appropriate 
> > database and `CREATE EXTENSION timescaledb CASCADE` as documented. When 
> > wrote into TimescaleDB/PostgreSQL instance some time-dependent data (logs 
> > and collectd data).
> > Very useful plugin to convert ordinary vertically scaling PostgreSQL 
> > database into fast and reliable time-series database with automatic scaling 
> > using 'Chunking' for gorizontally scaling instead of manual 'Sharding' 
> > scaling mechanism like others do.
> > Martin
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020 8:12 AM, Martin [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Comments? OK?
> > > Martin
> > > $OpenBSD: Makefile,v $
> > > =======================
> > > Makefile
> > > COMMENT = extension to scale PostgreSQL for time-series data
> > > GH_ACCOUNT = timescale
> > > GH_PROJECT = timescaledb
> > > GH_TAGNAME = 1.7.2
> > > CATEGORIES = databases
> > > HOMEPAGE = https://www.timescale.com/
> > > ALv2
>
> If this is Apache license, we usually write e.g. "# Apache 2.0"
>
> > > =====
> > > PERMIT_PACKAGE = Yes
> > > WANTLIB = c crypto pq ssl
> > > COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc
>
> is this needed? (i.e. is it expected to fail with base-gcc?)
>
> > > MODULES = devel/cmake
> > > LIB_DEPENDS = databases/postgresql
> > > BUILD_DEPENDS = databases/postgresql,-server
> > > RUN_DEPENDS = databases/postgresql,-server
> > > CONFIGURE_ARGS += -DREGRESS_CHECKS=OFF
>
> is there a reason to disable tests?


Reply via email to