A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mohan, Ross")
wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time for a thoughtful response. Once
> again, I am educated on this list
>
> I was a bit unclear in original post -- while I *am* planning on
> stabilizing my build environment (updatin
general@postgresql.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Fast request for version checking
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mohan, Ross") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> I have 2.53, yes.
>
> But, I am going to rebuild and re-AC this, so need
> to build m4 (1.4.3) in ord
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mohan, Ross") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> I have 2.53, yes.
>
> But, I am going to rebuild and re-AC this, so need
> to build m4 (1.4.3) in order to get to 2.59 of AConf.
>
> Any reasons to strongly advocate or avoid forcing
> compiler into strict ANSI/C99 or IS
Mohan, Ross wrote:
> Any reasons to strongly advocate or avoid forcing
> compiler into strict ANSI/C99 or ISO C mode? I had
> to do that to get m4 to compile. I'd like to stay
> on a single track (ANSI compliant or not) with all
> builds.
If you need to build m4 then you should ask there on how to
l.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Fast request for version checking
"Mohan, Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you go to the root of your postgresql distro
> and type
> ./configure --version
> what version of AutoConf was used?
For any reasonably recent PG
"Mohan, Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you go to the root of your postgresql distro
> and type
> ./configure --version
> what version of AutoConf was used?
For any reasonably recent PG release, it will be 2.53 if built from
source. Some RPM distributions may have re-autoconf'd though (I
