Re: [PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
Version numbers don't update properly on postgres.exe when doing make clean/make. It works for all other exes and dlls. I beleive this is just a case of make clean not properly removing win32ver.o. See attached patch. Hmm, is that the only place we missed it? Might be worth diffing a make

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-31 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only in pgsql/src/timezone: zic.exe ^ Seems the Makefile only removes zic not zic.exe. Should be zic$(X), I beleive. Ah, good catch. The rest are supposed to be there. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-31 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Version numbers don't update properly on postgres.exe when doing make clean/make. It works for all other exes and dlls. I beleive this is just a case of make clean not properly removing win32ver.o. See attached patch. Applied, except I used

[PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
Seems to be a neverending story :-) Version numbers don't update properly on postgres.exe when doing make clean/make. It works for all other exes and dlls. I beleive this is just a case of make clean not properly removing win32ver.o. See attached patch. //Magnus backend_clean.patch

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-30 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Version numbers don't update properly on postgres.exe when doing make clean/make. It works for all other exes and dlls. I beleive this is just a case of make clean not properly removing win32ver.o. See attached patch. Hmm, is that the only place we

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 version numbers not correct (again, but this one is easy)

2004-12-30 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, is that the only place we missed it? Might be worth diffing a make distclean'd tree against a virgin one. I was under the impression we only wanted a new version number with a configure run, however, I can see that make clean