Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan


KaiGai Kohei wrote:
 I found a tiny fix for configure.in at Nov 26.

 http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in.diff?r1=1.537;r2=1.538;f=h

 It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the latest 
 one.
 Is there any reason for this change?

 For example, autoconf 2.61 is installed in the Fedora 7, 8 and rawhide,
 so this chage will be troubled for many developers.


   

Who does this affect in practice? You don't need to run autoconf to
build postgres, only to change it.

cheers

andrew

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
   subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
   message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread KaiGai Kohei
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
 
 KaiGai Kohei wrote:
 I found a tiny fix for configure.in at Nov 26.

 http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in.diff?r1=1.537;r2=1.538;f=h

 It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the latest 
 one.
 Is there any reason for this change?

 For example, autoconf 2.61 is installed in the Fedora 7, 8 and rawhide,
 so this chage will be troubled for many developers.


   
 
 Who does this affect in practice? You don't need to run autoconf to
 build postgres, only to change it.

Indeed, you are correct.
It is not affect for _many_ developers. :)

However, I added a new configure option (--enable-selinux) in my branch,
so I got a trouble on running autoconf.

I want to know the reason why the version of autoconf is fixed, to avoid
this trouble with an appropriate way in my branch.

The CVS commit log does not give us enough information...
 Require a specific Autoconf version, instead of a lower bound only.

Thanks,
-- 
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan


KaiGai Kohei wrote:
 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
   
 KaiGai Kohei wrote:
 
 I found a tiny fix for configure.in at Nov 26.

 http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure.in.diff?r1=1.537;r2=1.538;f=h

 It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the latest 
 one.
 Is there any reason for this change?

 For example, autoconf 2.61 is installed in the Fedora 7, 8 and rawhide,
 so this chage will be troubled for many developers.


   
   
 Who does this affect in practice? You don't need to run autoconf to
 build postgres, only to change it.
 

 Indeed, you are correct.
 It is not affect for _many_ developers. :)

 However, I added a new configure option (--enable-selinux) in my branch,
 so I got a trouble on running autoconf.

 I want to know the reason why the version of autoconf is fixed, to avoid
 this trouble with an appropriate way in my branch.

   



See discussion thread starting here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-11/msg00706.php

cheers

andreew

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread Greg Smith

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, KaiGai Kohei wrote:


It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the latest one.
Is there any reason for this change?


2.59 is the stable version of autoconf PostgreSQL 8.3 is built against, 
and the check keeps anyone from accidentally running it against other 
versions.  Since as you've noticed some popular OSes have switched to 
2.61, that test was put in there to keep people building a new configure 
to give out to everyone from accidentally building against the wrong 
version.  The brutally long thread at 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-11/msg00706.php gives 
more background on this topic.


--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread KaiGai Kohei

Andrew, Greg, Thanks for your infomation.

I've skimed through the thread.
It seems to me that using autoconf-2.59 and applying a patch to pre-built
configure is the most appropriate way to add an original configure option.

Thanks,

Greg Smith wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, KaiGai Kohei wrote:

It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the 
latest one.

Is there any reason for this change?


2.59 is the stable version of autoconf PostgreSQL 8.3 is built against, 
and the check keeps anyone from accidentally running it against other 
versions.  Since as you've noticed some popular OSes have switched to 
2.61, that test was put in there to keep people building a new configure 
to give out to everyone from accidentally building against the wrong 
version.  The brutally long thread at 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-11/msg00706.php gives 
more background on this topic.


--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] autoconf trouble in the CVS HEAD

2007-12-18 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
 It seems to me this check enforces us to use autoconf 2.59, not the latest 
 one.
 Is there any reason for this change?

 The brutally long thread at 
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-11/msg00706.php gives 
 more background on this topic.

The short answer to this is that if you want to re-run autoconf from
configure.in, and you want to use some other autoconf version than the
one the Postgres project officially supports for the particular PG
branch, you're free to patch that line out of configure.in and do what
you want.  The check is in there to keep *us* from doing something we
don't want to do, which is to ship a version of the configure script
that we have not tested.  When you override the project's choice of
autoconf version, it's entirely on your own head whether the result
works or not.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do this --- I'll very likely have to do it
myself in at least some Red Hat/Fedora branches.  It's just that the
project isn't going to support these combinations.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate