Tom Lane wrote: > The proposed patch to Makefile.shlib makes me gag :-( ...
It is ugly. > lying to make > about what's the purpose of a rule is seldom a good idea. Please try > as attached instead. I will ASAP. > Also, I am *really* dubious about the change to > ecpg/test/Makefile.regress --- if that's necessary then this whole > exercise is wrong. For a dynamic build you do not need the change. Only a --disable-shared build will gag without it. I'll have a look at that too. Yours, Laurenz Albe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
