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

From Lou Picciano
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date
Msg-id 230835081.9481271267163268665.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Joseph Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
List pgsql-bugs
Now, you've reminded me of something: That one or more versions of tar have trouble with very long file/directory names



I've run into this with one of the source trees we've been working in - was it here in PostgreSQL? Could this be a
culprit? 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Conway" <mail@joeconway.com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>, "Lou Picciano" <loupicciano@comcast.net>, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org,
bsdeepu@gmail.com 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 12:29:43 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [BUGS] PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 have tested a few different ways on a fresh CentOS vm and have been
unable to reproduce the issue either (including make clean prior to
build, mv openjade and jade so they are not found by configure)

> 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.

I added Deepak on whose machine I witnessed the problem to the cc list
so that he can tell us what OS it was in his case.

> * 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.

I'm reasonably certain he did not do this before seeing the problem. I
think it was a simple untar, configure, make, make install...

Joe

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Joseph Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?