Re: Experimental patch: generating BKI revisited - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Experimental patch: generating BKI revisited
Date
Msg-id 4AFDCB1A.5030105@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Experimental patch: generating BKI revisited  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>   
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>     
>>> Yeah.  Although the project policy is that we don't require Perl to
>>> build on Unix, there was a bug in the makefiles that made it effectively
>>> required, and nobody noticed for several years.  I don't think it would
>>> be a hard sell to change that policy if we got a significant benefit out
>>> of it.  (Depending on non-core Perl modules is a totally different thing
>>> though.)
>>>       
>
>   
>> Well, this is a pretty fortunate turn of events.  I had two paragraphs
>> in my original email that I edited out ("... so I'm not going to say
>> more") on how to workaround the lack of Perl.  If we're all OK now on
>> requiring some basic Perl installation then all the better.  I certainly
>> have no trouble with it.
>>     
>
> Although actually, we could still keep that policy if Perl is needed to
> build .bki files --- we just have to build those files in distprep and
> ship them as part of tarballs.  It's already the case that you need Perl
> to build from a CVS pull, it's only tarball users who don't need it.
>
>             
>   

That's all true. But maybe it's time to look again at this anyway. Perl 
is pretty darn ubiquitous these days. And awk-fu is getting rarer and rarer.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: next CommitFest