From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |
Date: | 2010-12-10 15:32:56 |
Message-ID: | 23371.1291995176@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>>> What if $extension.control exists? Is it a byproduct of the .in file
>>> from previous `make` run or a user file? What if we have both the .in
>>> and the make variable because people are confused? Or both the make
>>> variables and a .control and not .control.in? Etc...
>> * Always remove $extension.control in the `clean` targets
> Hell no, as you can bypass the .in mechanism and provide directly the
> .control file.
Are there any actual remaining use-cases for that sed step? It's
certainly vestigial as far as the contrib modules are concerned:
it would be simpler and more readable to replace MODULE_PATHNAME with
$libdir in the sources. Unless somebody can point to a real-world
use-case, I'd just as soon get rid of the .in files altogether while
we're having this flag day.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-12-10 15:46:48 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-10 15:27:25 | Re: Anyone for SSDs? |