Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PL/perl should fail on configure, not make

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL/perl should fail on configure, not make
Date: 2013-01-09 17:50:52
Message-ID: 27522.1357753852@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 1/9/13 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The libperl-dev package, as constituted, doesn't make any sense: it's
>> got the symlink which people need, and a very large static (.a) library
>> that most people don't need.  Even worse, you can't tell without close
>> inspection which of those files is actually used by a package that
>> requires libperl-dev, and that is something that's important to know.

> The expectation is that if you want to link against libfoo, you install
> libfoo-dev, and after that you can uninstall it.  What's wrong with that?

What's wrong is that it's hard to tell whether the resulting package
will contain a reference to the shared library (libperl.so.whatever)
or an embedded copy of the static library.  As I tried to explain, this
is something that a well-run distro will want to be able to control,
or at least determine automatically from the package's BuildRequires
list (RPM-ism, not sure what Debian's package management stuff calls the
equivalent concept).  That makes it a bad idea independently of the
problem of whether two configure tests are needed rather than one.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2013-01-09 17:51:12
Subject: Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers
Previous:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2013-01-09 17:50:38
Subject: Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group