I think they just have to be there. Preferably in the form of raw code - as
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> It looks to me like the unmodified Makefile builds the .sql files
> >> on the assumption they will be used *in the source tree*. So basically
> >> no installer could use that as-is anyway.
> > Sounds like something that should be fixed upstream, if someone is
> > sufficiently interested.
> First thing we'd have to figure out is what behavior we want instead.
> There are at least two places in the manual that actually say these
> files are in the source tree, so it's not just a minor coding detail.
> (In fact, I think at least part of the intention is to have the user
> learn how to build functions from source, so possibly the right question
> to ask is why *should* these be shipped in binary builds?)
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-12-22 20:14:48|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5250: Tutorial examples(pre-compiled) not present
with precompiled binary version of PostgreSQL.|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-22 19:53:19|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5250: Tutorial examples(pre-compiled) not present with precompiled binary version of PostgreSQL. |