Gregory Stark wrote:
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, since they are (or should be) architecture-independent, what's the
point? Out-of-tree builds are intended to support building for multiple
architectures in parallel; but there's no reason to force independent
reconstruction
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, since they are (or should be) architecture-independent, what's the
> point? Out-of-tree builds are intended to support building for multiple
> architectures in parallel; but there's no reason to force independent
> reconstructions of these common der
On Jan 9, 2008 9:51 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Warren Turkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was wondering if there is a reason that the flex and bison and other
> > generated source files end up in the source directory when doing an
> > out-of-tree build. Would a patch that pu
"Warren Turkal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering if there is a reason that the flex and bison and other
> generated source files end up in the source directory when doing an
> out-of-tree build. Would a patch that puts those files in the build
> trees be accepted?
Probably not, since
I was wondering if there is a reason that the flex and bison and other
generated source files end up in the source directory when doing an
out-of-tree build. Would a patch that puts those files in the build
trees be accepted?
wt
---(end of broadcast)---
