From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove distprep |
Date: | 2023-11-02 22:34:18 |
Message-ID: | 20231102223418.hxa6ohl5b52jjuje@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-11-01 16:39:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > OTOH, it seems somewhat unlikely that maintainer-clean is utilized much in
> > extensions. I see it in things like postgis, but that has it's own configure
> > etc, even though it also invokes pgxs.
>
> I thought about this. I don't think this is something that any extension
> would use. If they care about the distinction between distclean and
> maintainer-clean, are they also doing their own distprep and dist? Seems
> unlikely. I mean, if some extension is actually affected, I'm happy to
> accommodate, but we can deal with that when we learn about it. Moreover, if
> we are moving forward in this direction, we would presumably also like the
> extensions to get rid of their distprep step.
>
> So I think we are ready to move ahead with this patch. There have been some
> light complaints earlier in this thread that people wanted to keep some way
> to clean only some of the files. But there hasn't been any concrete
> follow-up on that, as far as I can see, so I don't know what to do about
> that.
+1, let's do this. We can add dedicated target for more specific cases later
if we decide we want that.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nico Williams | 2023-11-02 22:38:47 | Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-11-02 22:24:36 | Re: Detoasting optionally to make Explain-Analyze less misleading |