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 19:47:04 |
Message-ID: | 28190.1292010424@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:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This doesn't answer my question of why it couldn't be done the other
>> way. Why does the makefile need to know it? If it does need to know
>> it, couldn't it get it out of the control file instead of vice versa?
> Well the Makefile support is just a facility to fill in the control file
> automatically for you, on the grounds that you're probably already
> maintaining your version number in the Makefile.
Why would you choose to maintain it in the Makefile? In most cases
makefiles are the least likely thing to be changing during a minor
update. I would think that the right place for it is in the C code
(if we're trying to version .so files) or the .sql file, if we're trying
to version the SQL objects. In particular, if the only reason the
makefile needs to know it is to inject it into the control file, it
seems completely silly to not just maintain it in the control file
instead.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-12-10 20:00:09 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-10 19:42:24 | Re: Extensions, patch v16 |