Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date
Msg-id 16121.1267159270@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
List pgsql-bugs
I wrote:
> * $(GENERATED_SGML) is removed by make clean, therefore also by
> make distclean
> Ergo, this type of failure is *guaranteed* when trying to build
> from a distribution tarball.  This needs to be rethought.

I looked at this some more, and this time I noticed that the makefile
has

.SECONDARY: postgres.xml $(GENERATED_SGML) HTML.index

which puts the lie to the above theory.  Also, in some simple testing
here I've not been able to reproduce the behavior of make wanting to
rebuild the HTML doc files when working from the alpha4 tarball.  So
I'm feeling baffled again.

I can think of a couple of possible theories at this point:

* those reporting problems are using versions of gmake that have bugs in
handling .SECONDARY files.

* those reporting problems have re-autoconf'd.  Since version.sgml
is declared to depend on $(top_srcdir)/configure, this would result
in a forced docs rebuild.  It might help a bit to make it depend on
configure.in instead; though I'm far from sure this explains the
complaints.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: possible bug not in open items
Next
From: Joseph Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?