Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Peter, do you remember that?
> BE_DLLLIBS; see Makefile.cygwin for example. (AIX has a similar > requirement, but handles it differently for bizarre reasons.) Right, thanks. > Personally, I think the two-level namespace feature is the opposite of > useful and we should stick with -flat_namespace, but I might have to give > in in the interest of having PostgreSQL behave like other packages on that > system. What do you have against the two-level namespace stuff? I find the arguments at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/ReleaseNotes/DeveloperTools/TwoLevelNamespaces.html moderately convincing. It doesn't seem like linking a symbol from library A instead of the expected library B would ever be a good idea. And I read the document as warning that Apple isn't promising there will never be name conflicts across standard libraries. It is kind of a PITA to have to be careful to link a shlib against everything it will use at runtime, but since we have some other supported platforms where that's required anyway, we don't really have a choice about maintaining the code to do it. Given that, I'm actually kind of attracted to converting the Darwin port to become a platform where that's required, because Darwin is a platform that I have easy access to and test on fairly regularly (when my laptop is working, anyway ;-)). We'd be less likely to suffer bit rot in this respect if the Darwin port required it too. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
