Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Is there any sort
>> of "quiet mode" possible that would report only warnings?
> [ it's already there ]
So maybe we just ought to tweak the installation instructions to
recommend use of --quiet?
regards
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Yeah, it seems there are some portability problems with that code.
> I'm looking into it.
Fixed.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:24:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hrm... I don't suppose there's a way to capture the critical warnings in
> > a temporary file and then cat that at the end? (I'm assuming that it'll
> > be nearly impossible to get a quite mod
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:36:14PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/devel/pg82/pgsql$ ./configure --enable-foo --quiet
> > > *** Option ignored: --enable-foo
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/devel/pg82/pgsql$
> >
> > Odd, I can't get that on a very recent chec
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/devel/pg82/pgsql$ ./configure --enable-foo --quiet
> > *** Option ignored: --enable-foo
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/devel/pg82/pgsql$
>
> Odd, I can't get that on a very recent checkout of HEAD:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:51]~/pgsql/HEAD:156%./configure
> --with-inc
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 08:40:42PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Not sure what to do about that --- I doubt that raising this warning
> > to error would be a good idea, seeing how firmly the upstream
> > developers believe it shouldn't even be a warning. Is there any sort
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Not sure what to do about that --- I doubt that raising this warning
> to error would be a good idea, seeing how firmly the upstream
> developers believe it shouldn't even be a warning. Is there any sort
> of "quiet mode" possible that would report only warnings? Would it
> be a
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrm... I don't suppose there's a way to capture the critical warnings in
> a temporary file and then cat that at the end? (I'm assuming that it'll
> be nearly impossible to get a quite mode out of autoconf...)
Hmm ... maybe we could just rearrange the s
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:45:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the meantime, +1 to adding some whitespace around the warning... I'd
> > suggest two blank lines before and after.
>
> I don't really see that that would accomplish anything. The problem
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the meantime, +1 to adding some whitespace around the warning... I'd
> suggest two blank lines before and after.
I don't really see that that would accomplish anything. The problem is
exactly that configure emits many many lines of output which no o
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:25:28AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > > I would like a pedantic mode, but the method of activation is a tricky
> > > issue. You want it to be 'on' for normal users but 'off' for automatic
> > > build scripts.
> >
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > I would like a pedantic mode, but the method of activation is a tricky
> > issue. You want it to be 'on' for normal users but 'off' for automatic
> > build scripts.
>
> A quiet mode would work better, because it could be on by default for
> bo
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> I would like a pedantic mode, but the method of activation is a tricky
> issue. You want it to be 'on' for normal users but 'off' for automatic
> build scripts.
A quiet mode would work better, because it could be on by default for
both cases. However, people may
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:01:06PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I think one idea is a "pedantic" mode that fails if an unrecognized
> > option is supplied.
>
> I do not see any point at all in a special mode. If you know enough to
> want to use it you should be able to protect yourself more di
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> >> IIRC it was made a non-fatal warning somewhere near the end of the
>> >> output, but I'm not sure...
>>
>> > It spits out this line just before it creates its output files:
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> >> IIRC it was made a non-fatal warning somewhere near the end of the
> >> output, but I'm not sure...
>
> > It spits out this line just before it creates its output files:
> > *** Option ignored: -
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> IIRC it was made a non-fatal warning somewhere near the end of the
>> output, but I'm not sure...
> It spits out this line just before it creates its output files:
> *** Option ignored: --with-lkjasdf
Of course, si
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:41:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > >Wasn't configure changed to complain if it's fed a bogus argument? I
> > >just did ./configure --with-deps on a fresh checkout and it didn't
>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 04:41:14PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >Wasn't configure changed to complain if it's fed a bogus argument? I
> >just did ./configure --with-deps on a fresh checkout and it didn't
> >complain...
> >
>
> My recollection was Peter said this was an au
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Wasn't configure changed to complain if it's fed a bogus argument? I
just did ./configure --with-deps on a fresh checkout and it didn't
complain...
My recollection was Peter said this was an autoconf "feature".
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast
Wasn't configure changed to complain if it's fed a bogus argument? I
just did ./configure --with-deps on a fresh checkout and it didn't
complain...
--
Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
21 matches
Mail list logo
