James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Oh, scratch that, I fat-fingered the experiment somehow. The issue
>> is still there. Still, I'm hesitant to apply the fix you suggest,
>> because of the law of unintended consequences. In particular, I'm
>> afraid that using -isysroot in the link step might result in executables
>> that are bound to that sysroot and will not work if it's not there
>> --- thus causing a problem for packagers trying to distribute PG
>> to non-developers.
> Since apple doesn't actually put real dylib's in the SDK path I think
> we're fine:
> $ find /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX11.0.sdk
> -name "*.dylib"
True. Also, while actual documentation on -isysroot seems to be damn
near nonexistent, all the example usages I can find on the net appear
to put it into both compile and link steps. So maybe we're just doing
it wrong and happened to get away with that this long.
> This seems to be a longstanding issue, I expect they don't care much about
> autotools compared with their normal Xcode project build system. So probably
> better to just give this a try and see how it goes as it's likely to
> keep popping up otherwise.
Yeah, the one saving grace here is that, unlike the last time, we're not
hard up against a release deadline. If we push this now we can hope to
get a fair amount of testing from PG developers before we have to ship
it.
regards, tom lane
