On 12/11/2013 05:14 AM, Sandeep Thakkar wrote: > How did you install postgresql on Debian? I have built PosrgreSQL > sources on CentOS, OSX and Windows and the port.h is installed in > include/postgresql/server/port.h and include/postgresql/internal/port.h > on all platforms.
The packages from apt.postgresql.org > > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Steve Singer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 11/29/2013 04:30 AM, Sandeep Thakkar wrote: > > The only work around I see now if to set the CPPFLAGS in the > environment > to the server include directory, so that CPPFLAGS_CLIENT takes > it in the > Makefile.global. > > > > So in debian (or at least with Wheezy) where the original bug 315 > was reported > > > libpq-dev puts port.h in /usr/include/postgresql/port.h so it gets > picked up by the client include paths. I am able to do a build with > --with-pgport > > This isn't actually a problem on debian, is the problem on OSX that > port.h isn't being put in the libpq header directories? Should it? > Where do other platforms/distributions put port.h ? > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Steve Singer > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected].__info > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > On 11/26/2013 04:14 AM, Sandeep Thakkar wrote: > > Hi > > I was building Slony1-2.2.1 sources on Mac OS X and > found that > the build > fails because of: > > slonik.c:49:18: error: port.h: No such file or directory > CPPFLAGS is now defined to just CPPFLAGS_CLIENT that > does not > include > the PG "server" include directory > ('<pginstall>/include/____postgresql/server' contains > port.h). Any > > specific > reason why this change was made in 2.2.1? > > > > http://www.slony.info/____bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=315 > <http://www.slony.info/__bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=315> > > <http://www.slony.info/__bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=315 > <http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=315>> > > On systems that have multiple versions of postgresql > installed might > pull in files for the client from one version and server > includes > from another. You used to be able to get away with this > but in more > recent versions of PG this breaks things. > > I am not exactly sure what the best way to deal with this > in the > PGPORT case? I have a feeling just adding the server > includes back > in on --with-pgport builds will get us back to the bug 315 > situation > > > > > > -- > Sandeep Thakkar > > > ___________________________________________________ > Slony1-general mailing list > [email protected].____info > <mailto:Slony1-general@lists.__slony.info > <mailto:[email protected]>> > http://lists.slony.info/____mailman/listinfo/slony1-____general > <http://lists.slony.info/__mailman/listinfo/slony1-__general> > > > <http://lists.slony.info/__mailman/listinfo/slony1-__general > <http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general>> > > > > > > -- > Sandeep Thakkar > > > > > > -- > Sandeep Thakkar > _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
