"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane said:
>> Accordingly, I think we should just avoid the whole problem of exactly
>> where com_err.h lives by removing the #includes for it as well as the
>> configure test for it.
> Works for me. I'm not sure why the reasoning only applies to
Tom Lane said:
> I wrote:
>>> [ concerning a discussion about Kerberos' com_err.h being in
>>> /usr/include/et/ on some systems ]
>
>> Actually, I'm wondering why we directly include com_err.h at all. At
>> least in the version of I have here, that file is included by
>> krb5.h; so both backend
I wrote:
>> [ concerning a discussion about Kerberos' com_err.h being in
>> /usr/include/et/ on some systems ]
> Actually, I'm wondering why we directly include com_err.h at all. At
> least in the version of I have here, that file is included by
> krb5.h; so both backend/libpq/auth.c and inter
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Instead of doing that, do:
--with-includes=/usr/include/et
>>> This same workaround is in the RPMs. I wonder if it would be
>>> wort
--On Montag, Dezember 13, 2004 17:23:06 +0100 Peter Eisentraut
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead of doing that, do:
> --with-includes=/usr/include/et
This same workaround is in the RPMs. I wonder if it would be
worthwhile for conf
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Instead of doing that, do:
> > --with-includes=/usr/include/et
>
> This same workaround is in the RPMs. I wonder if it would be
> worthwhile for configure to assume the above when --with-krb5 is
> mentioned. I don't know how wid
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead of doing that, do:
> --with-includes=/usr/include/et
This same workaround is in the RPMs. I wonder if it would be worthwhile
for configure to assume the above when --with-krb5 is mentioned. I
don't know how widespread this particular file
John Gray said:
> All went mainly well - but a couple of gotchas on the build (these may
> be Fedora bugs rather than PG ones). This install is pretty much brand
> new (2 days old) with very little local configuration, so should
> represent an FC3 out of the box.
>
> 1. com_err.h is in /usr/include
All went mainly well - but a couple of gotchas on the build (these may be
Fedora bugs rather than PG ones). This install is pretty much brand new
(2 days old) with very little local configuration, so should represent an
FC3 out of the box.
1. com_err.h is in /usr/include/et/com_err.h and isn't fo
