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

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date
Msg-id 4B855B88.80807@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Lou Picciano <loupicciano@comcast.net>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On 02/24/2010 08:43 AM, Lou Picciano wrote:
> Tom -=20
>=20
> Didn't realize I was arm waving - was I?  (Sometimes email falls well
> short...)
>=20
> We've managed a build of PostgreSQL 9.0-alpha4 - nice!  However, the #
> make install command apparently(?) hiccups=20
> on a dependency on Jade (we ain't usin' it!)

I had forgotten to report it, but we saw this exact case at the Postgres
booth at SCaLE on someone's laptop, and did the same workaround. We
started with the alpha tarball. I believe the machine was Fedora, but
not sure which. I tried to repeat the issue in a fresh CentOS VM when I
got home but did not see the problem (perhaps because jade was part of
the install -- will have to check).

Related to this I have noticed in recent weeks on my own development
machine that "make install" takes *much* longer, but only sporadically,
due to the docs building.

Joe

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #4921: ltree @> ltree[] operator shouldn't fail if ltree[] is empty
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?