Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > > assemble all the files we need (as determined by configure) into a static
> > > library and link all executables with that. That way we don't have to
> > > deal with the individual files in each individual makefile.
> >
> > I like that a lot. B
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Can we move them to src/port rather than src/utils? Port makes more
> sense to me because that's what they are. Maybe is should be called
> src/libc?
Well, there is a bit of a history in picking a really silly name for this
library. GCC calls it libiberty, Kerberos cal
Tom Lane writes:
> > assemble all the files we need (as determined by configure) into a static
> > library and link all executables with that. That way we don't have to
> > deal with the individual files in each individual makefile.
>
> I like that a lot. But will it work for libpq?
No, just f
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think we need to move the subdirectories, which involve stuff
> > that's heavily tied to the backend. But the generic C library replacement
> > files should move into src/utils preferably. In fact, what we could do is
> >
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think we need to move the subdirectories, which involve stuff
> that's heavily tied to the backend. But the generic C library replacement
> files should move into src/utils preferably. In fact, what we could do is
> assemble all the files we
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Yea, I thought of that. Means all the subdirectores have to move too.
> It is more extreme than moving stuff from /src/utils, but it is more
> logical.
I don't think we need to move the subdirectories, which involve stuff
that's heavily tied to the backend. But the gene
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > However, over time, this distinction has broken down and we have a
> > number of backend/port stuff used in other binaries. I propose moving
> > the src/utils remaining items into src/backend/port, and removing the
> > src/utils directory.
>
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > However, over time, this distinction has broken down and we have a
> > number of backend/port stuff used in other binaries. I propose moving
> > the src/utils remaining items into src/backend/port, and removing the
> > src/utils directory.
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> However, over time, this distinction has broken down and we have a
> number of backend/port stuff used in other binaries. I propose moving
> the src/utils remaining items into src/backend/port, and removing the
> src/utils directory.
I propose the reverse operation.
--
We have src/utils for stuff supposedly that is used by the backend and
other binaries, and src/backend/port for stuff used only by the backend.
However, over time, this distinction has broken down and we have a
number of backend/port stuff used in other binaries. I propose moving
the src/utils r
10 matches
Mail list logo
