On 2023-11-21 Tu 13:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Hmm, do we still need to have README.git as a separate file from README?
Also, looking at README, I see it refers to the INSTALL file in the
root, but that doesn't exist. "make -C doc/src/sgml INSTALL" creates
it, but it's not
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Hmm, do we still need to have README.git as a separate file from README?
> Also, looking at README, I see it refers to the INSTALL file in the
> root, but that doesn't exist. "make -C doc/src/sgml INSTALL" creates
> it, but it's not copied to the root directory. Do we
On 2023-Nov-07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 04:21:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > done
>
> Nice to see 721856ff24b3 in, thanks!
Hmm, do we still need to have README.git as a separate file from README?
Also, looking at README, I see it refers to the INSTALL file in
On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 04:21:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> done
Nice to see 721856ff24b3 in, thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 02.11.23 23:34, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2023-11-01 16:39:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
OTOH, it seems somewhat unlikely that maintainer-clean is utilized much in
extensions. I see it in things like postgis, but that has it's own configure
etc, even though it also invokes pgxs.
I
On 2023-11-01 16:39:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > OTOH, it seems somewhat unlikely that maintainer-clean is utilized much in
> > extensions. I see it in things like postgis, but that has it's own configure
> > etc, even though it also invokes pgxs.
>
> I thought about this. I don't think
On 09.10.23 17:14, Andres Freund wrote:
It kinda works, but I'm not sure how well. Because the aliasing happens in
Makefile.global, we won't know about the "original" maintainer-clean target
once recursing into a subdir.
That's perhaps OK, because extensions likely won't utilize
Hi,
On 2023-10-09 12:16:23 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.10.23 20:50, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The only thing I wonder is whether we ought to keep a maintainer-clean
> > target (as an alias to distclean), so that extensions that added things
> > to maintainer-clean continue to work.
>
>
On 06.10.23 20:50, Andres Freund wrote:
The only thing I wonder is whether we ought to keep a maintainer-clean
target (as an alias to distclean), so that extensions that added things
to maintainer-clean continue to work.
The patch does do that.
Hi,
On 2023-10-05 17:46:46 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The attached updated patch is also split up like Andres suggested nearby.
Thanks.
> (Not sure if it would be good to commit it that way, but it's easier to look
> at for now for sure.)
I'd push together, but I think the split is
On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 08:38:31AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yes, something like that. Some people wanted a tarball of just the HTML
> docs for download. Similar to the PDFs currently, I suppose.
I suspected so.
I've marked the patch as RfC for now.
--
Michael
signature.asc
On 06.10.23 04:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
That's not really something for this patch, but I got to ask. What's
the final plan for the documentation when it comes to releases? A
second tarball separated from the git-only tarball that includes all
that and the HTML docs, generated with a new
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:46:46PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ok, I think I found a better way to address this. It requires keeping a
> subset of the old distprep target in src/backend/Makefile for use by nls.mk.
> I have checked that the above sequence now works, and that the generated
>
= @perl_archlibexp@
perl_privlibexp= @perl_privlibexp@
perl_includespec = @perl_includespec@
@@ -777,21 +773,13 @@ TAS = @TAS@
# Global targets and rules
%.c: %.l
-ifdef FLEX
$(FLEX) $(if $(FLEX_NO_BACKUP),-b) $(FLEXFLAGS) -o'$@' $<
@$(
Hi,
On 2023-08-23 12:46:45 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v4] Remove distprep
>
> A PostgreSQL release tarball contains a number of prebuilt files, in
> particular files produced by bison, flex, perl, and well as html and
> man documentation. We have done
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:46:45PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Apparently, the headerscheck and cpluspluscheck targets still didn't work
> right in the Cirrus jobs. Here is an updated patch to address that. This
> is also rebased over some recent changes that affected this patch (generated
ress
that. This is also rebased over some recent changes that affected this
patch (generated wait events stuff).
From c386175ab4194aa2b17a8374f73a9de4aa0edb56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:15:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v4] Remove distprep
A PostgreSQL
Re: Michael Paquier
> Is reproducibility something you've brought to a separate thread?
> FWIW, I'd be interested in improving this area for the in-core code,
> if need be. (Not material for this thread, of course).
All the "normal" things like C compilation are actually already
reproducible.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:22:47AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Yes, mostly. Since autoconf had not seen a new release for so long,
> everyone started to patch it, and one of the things that Debian and
> others added was --runstatedir=DIR. The toolchain is also using it,
> it's part of the
Re: Michael Paquier
> This one comes down to Debian that patches autoconf with its own set
> of options, requiring a new ./configure in the tree, right?
Yes, mostly. Since autoconf had not seen a new release for so long,
everyone started to patch it, and one of the things that Debian and
others
On 2023-08-18 10:11:12 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 07:38:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2023-08-09 16:25:28 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> >> Understood, I was just pointing out there are more types of generated
> >> files in there.
> >
> > The situation for
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 07:38:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-08-09 16:25:28 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Understood, I was just pointing out there are more types of generated
>> files in there.
>
> The situation for configure is somewhat different, due to being maintained in
> the
On 14.07.23 11:48, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
Ah, there was a reason. The headerscheck and cpluspluscheck targets
need jsonpath_gram.h to be built first. Which previously happened
indirectly somehow? I have fixed this in the new patch version. I also
fixed the issue that
Hi,
Thanks for sending the -packagers email Peter!
On 2023-08-09 16:25:28 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Tom Lane
> > Meh ... the fact that it works fine for you doesn't mean it will work
> > fine elsewhere. Since we're trying to get out from under maintaining
> > the autoconf build system,
Re: Tom Lane
> Meh ... the fact that it works fine for you doesn't mean it will work
> fine elsewhere. Since we're trying to get out from under maintaining
> the autoconf build system, I don't think it makes sense to open
> ourselves up to having to do more work on it. A policy of benign
>
Christoph Berg writes:
> Most notably, we are also rebuilding "configure" using autoconf 2.71
> without issues. Perhaps we can get rid of the 2.69 hardcoding there?
Meh ... the fact that it works fine for you doesn't mean it will work
fine elsewhere. Since we're trying to get out from under
Re: Tom Lane
> Have we yet run this concept past the packagers list? I'm still
> wondering if they will raise any objection to getting rid of all
> the prebuilt files.
No problem for Debian, we are building snapshot releases from plain
git already without issues. In fact, there are already some
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Ah, there was a reason. The headerscheck and cpluspluscheck targets
> need jsonpath_gram.h to be built first. Which previously happened
> indirectly somehow? I have fixed this in the new patch version. I also
> fixed the issue that Álvaro reported nearby.
Have
indirectly somehow? I have fixed this in the new patch version. I also
fixed the issue that Álvaro reported nearby.
From 5b5e46ea28f4911408eb40936e814b4a05281baa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:53:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v3] Remove distprep
A Postg
On 2023-Jul-14, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/parser/Makefile b/src/backend/parser/Makefile
> index 9f1c4022bb..3d33b082f2 100644
> --- a/src/backend/parser/Makefile
> +++ b/src/backend/parser/Makefile
> @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ scan.c: FLEX_FIX_WARNING=yes
> # Force these
ed for the
recently added generate-wait_event_types.pl, and I have adjusted all the
header file linking to use relative paths consistently. This addresses
all issues known to me.
From 260d055b0428130d9db96bed2298495ce7e93505 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 09:3
Hi,
On 2023-06-09 11:10:14 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Per discussion at the unconference[0], I started to write a patch that
> removes the make distprep target. A more detailed explanation of the
> rationale is also in the patch.
Thanks for tackling this!
> It needs some polishing
veloper_Unconference#Build_SystemFrom b187ce08fe140225f9ff24bf3ae4d2e97f57221d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:53:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v1] Remove distprep
A PostgreSQL release tarball contains a number of prebuilt files, in
particular files produced
33 matches
Mail list logo
