Re: [PATCHES] Patch to add version numbers to

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >>> One difficulty was generating a new version of libpq.rc at the proper
> >>> time. I added a prepdist rule just like *.def. I also added code so
> >>> every time you do a 'make clean' or distclean it does a 'touch' on
> >>> libpq.rc.in so libpq.rc is rebuilt on the next compile. That seemed
> >>> like the cleanest solution.
> >>
> >> ... except CVS will not like it at all. Why don't you just remove the
> >> libpq.rc file instead?
>
> > I am going to remove libpq.rc from CVS because it is now a derived file
> > from libpq.rc.in. I don't remove via 'clean' because if someone wants
> > to build VC or BCC and Win32 with the same tarball then once they do a
> > 'clean' they can't do a VC or BCC compile anymore.
>
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> Not in the least.
>
> What I'm complaining about is that you can't simply "touch" a file that
> is under CVS control; CVS will think it's been modified.

Really? If I touch a file and do a commit I don't see anything happen.
There might be a problem that cvs is going to check that file over and
over again when it doesn't need to and I certainly don't like the touch
solution.

> Perhaps it would work to make libpq.rc depend on both libpq.rc.in and
> src/Makefile.global; then any re-configure would force it to be rebuilt.

Oh, so make it dependent on a file derived from a configure run. New
patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073