| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 04:22:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20550.1267071777@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> That doesn't in itself explain a problem with building from the
> alpha tarball though. Is it possible there's a clock skew problem
> in the tarball's file timestamps?
I poked around in the alpha4 tarball and didn't find clock skew.
What I found out was that there's some fundamental fuzzy thinking
in the new docs build process:
* install-html depends on html depends on $(GENERATED_SGML)
* $(GENERATED_SGML) is removed by make clean, therefore also by
make distclean
Ergo, this type of failure is *guaranteed* when trying to build
from a distribution tarball. This needs to be rethought.
It might be sufficient to not clean $(GENERATED_SGML) except in
make maintainer-clean, but I'm not convinced that's a nice solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-25 05:01:34 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 03:58:17 | Re: New PL/Perl failure with Safe 2.2x due to recursion (8.x & 9.0) |