Thread: Re: [ADMIN] build from Source: 9.0.1 / 9.1-alpha1 cannot build modules
Tom,
Turns out the make problem was actually one of my issuing 'make'. IE, the resolution was simply issuing 'gmake' explicitly. To add some special sauce to the recipe, the 'make' of the core server went without a hitch; was only the build of modules which did not work.... Kinda misleading.
Back in openSolaris days, by whatever PATH Black Magic, my habitual 'make' commands were actually getting to gnu make. Not so in default current builds of OpenIndiana. This may be of some use to someone.
Lou Picciano
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Lou Picciano" <loupicciano@comcast.net>
Cc: "pgsql-testers" <pgsql-testers@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-admin" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 12:53:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] build from Source: 9.0.1 / 9.1-alpha1 cannot build modules
Lou Picciano <loupicciano@comcast.net> writes:
> 'Wacko', indeed, no?
> It's make 3.81, as packaged with OpenIndiana. gcc is 3.4.3.
Hm, 3.81 is a pretty popular version, so that doesn't seem to be the
answer. Did you look at exactly what was on the complained-of line?
It looks to me like it should be
top_srcdir = $(top_builddir)
which seems unobjectionable. But maybe there's something wrong
with your copy of Makefile.global.in.
BTW, was this a vpath build, or not?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
Lou Picciano <loupicciano@comcast.net> writes:
> Turns out the make problem was actually one of my issuing 'make'. IE, the resolution was simply issuing 'gmake'
explicitly.To add some special sauce to the recipe, the 'make' of the core server went without a hitch; was only the
buildof modules which did not work.... Kinda misleading.
That is interesting. What exactly is plain "make" invoking? In the
past, people trying to use non-GNU make have not gotten anywhere near
getting through a whole build --- and we've certainly not removed any
of our gmake-isms. It seems like you must have something that's sort
of 89% gmake, but not quite all the way there.
regards, tom lane