On 11/11/2010 03:19 PM, Dave Page wrote:
My hope is that one day CMake will enable us to come up with a universal
solution, but we're some way from that yet.
We used CMake for a couple of projects, but ended up abandoning it for
new stuff. It just didn't work as nicely as we wanted.
Yes,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland
wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and
>>> isn't
>>> its Windows version build with MSVC?
>>
>> Yes - it's a PITA as we
Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and isn't
its Windows version build with MSVC?
Yes - it's a PITA as we have to have a dummy build of the server in
mingw/msys to compile PostGIS and Slony.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and isn't
> its Windows version build with MSVC?
Yes - it's a PITA as we have to have a dummy build of the server in
mingw/msys to compile PostGIS and Slony. We're probably
On 11/11/2010 11:43 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
Thanks - installed.
As a matter of policy, I do not want to drop support for a FOSS
build tool
chain on Windows if at all avoidable.
Nor I, however I only have limited time to dedicate to that goal.
One thing to think abo
Dave Page wrote:
Thanks - installed.
As a matter of policy, I do not want to drop support for a FOSS build tool
chain on Windows if at all avoidable.
Nor I, however I only have limited time to dedicate to that goal.
One thing to think about is that since PostGIS uses MingW/PGXS on
Windows
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> No, all you need to unpack those is the basic-bsdtar package.
Ahh, OK. That seems to be in the MinGW (compiler) section of the
downloads for some reason.
> But to save
> you the pain of all this, I have copied the three objects I install
On 11/11/2010 06:58 AM, Dave Page wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to
find bison just fine. Are you sure the right make was installed? It looks
suspicious because it's not talking about msys vir
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to
> find bison just fine. Are you sure the right make was installed? It looks
> suspicious because it's not talking about msys virtual maths like the old
> make did. It
On 11/10/2010 10:32 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-11-09 at 03:54 -0800, Dave Page wrote:
Narwhal should be OK now.
The build has issues now, possibly related to the make upgrade.
Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to
find bison just fine. Are
On tis, 2010-11-09 at 03:54 -0800, Dave Page wrote:
> Narwhal should be OK now.
The build has issues now, possibly related to the make upgrade.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-ha
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-11-03 at 16:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break?
>>
>> I suppose we don't. One way to find out would be
On 11/06/2010 07:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
So far, two machines have reported an older make version:
dawn_bat
narwhal
both of the mingw type. Andrew, Dave, could you see about upgrading the
GNU make installation there?
dawn_bat is done.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
On ons, 2010-11-03 at 16:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break?
>
> I suppose we don't. One way to find out would be to commit just this
> bit
>
> +# We need the $(eval) functio
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break?
> I suppose we don't. One way to find out would be to commit just this
> bit
> +# We need the $(eval) function, which is available in GNU make 3.80
On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > This patch requires GNU make 3.80, because of the above "|" feature and
> > the $(eval) function. Version 3.80 is dated October 2002, so it should
> > be no problem, but I do occasionally read of make 3.79 around he
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> This patch requires GNU make 3.80, because of the above "|" feature and
> the $(eval) function. Version 3.80 is dated October 2002, so it should
> be no problem, but I do occasionally read of make 3.79 around here;
> maybe it's time to get rid of that. I did put in a c
I have worked on some improvements on how we handle recursive make in
our makefiles. Most places uses for loops, which has some
disadvantages: parallel make doesn't work across directories, make -k
doesn't work, and make -q doesn't work. Instead, I went with the
approach that we already use in th
18 matches
Mail list logo
