The patch works on AIX with one small tweak to Makefile.shlib
(attached). This is needed because of the clever trick with using % as
name, and when its evaulated for the mkldexport.
Also, it appears that the changes for regress/GNUmakefile are already
applied.
I am able to build everything and pass the regression tests. This just
leaves the contrib/pgport issue from letting AIX go green on the
buildfarm.
Thanks for getting this simplification done!
-rocco
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:00 PM
> To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
> Subject: [PATCHES] Proposed patch to remove .so pattern rules
> from platform Makefiles
>
>
> I've wanted for a long time to get rid of the pattern rules in the
> port-specific Makefiles that generate shared libraries from single
> object files. These patterns duplicate (or, more often, fail to
> completely duplicate) the knowledge in Makefile.shlib. So from
> a maintenance point of view centralizing that knowledge is a good
> thing.
>
> The stumbling block has been partly that the regression-test makefile
> depended on the pattern rules (easily fixed by using Makefile.shlib)
> and partly that pgxs.mk (and its predecessor
> contrib-global.mk) depended
> on the pattern rules to handle Makefiles that wanted to build multiple
> .so files. Since Makefile.shlib is designed to handle only one shlib
> per build, there wasn't any obvious way to fix that.
>
> The attached proposed patch gets around this by invoking
> Makefile.shlib
> in a way that produces a pattern rule "lib%.so : %.o". This is
> moderately ugly but it gets the job done without changing
> Makefile.shlib
> itself. Possibly it could be done more cleanly if we were willing
> to introduce pattern rules inside Makefile.shlib.
>
> I am not sure if the patch works on non-Unix platforms ---
> could someone
> test on Win32 and Cygwin, in particular? AIX is weird enough to need
> testing too.
>
> Any other comments?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
