Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0

From: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: buildfarm - make check failures for leveret on 8.0
Date: 2006-08-07 18:40:22
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0608071131340.31620@frousa
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> > *) why the large difference in the build-flags ?
>
> CVS HEAD configure.in knows about icc and the release branches don't.
> I think the changes were only put into HEAD because of lack of testing,
> but if we have buildfarm coverage I think it'd be OK to back-port the
> configure logic to the prior branches. Any objections?

I sent the original patch. I just sent it for HEAD because a) I could
still deal with previous branches by editing Makefile.global by hand after
configure, b) I reconfigured older branches seldom enough compared to
HEAD that it didn't bother me nearly as much, and c) I figured it would be
more readily accepted into HEAD than trying to get it back-ported. Also I
was not sure about the acceptance of such things into back branches, since
it may be interpreted that supporting a new compiler is a "new feature"
and most projects don't like to add new features to old releases.

>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

--
martin(at)bdsi(dot)com (no longer valid - where are you now, Martin?)
-- from /usr/src/linux/drivers/cdrom/mcd.c

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jose Orlando Pereira 2006-08-07 18:40:26 Re: standard interfaces for replication providers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-07 18:38:21 Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough