From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RPMS for 7.1beta3 being uploaded. |
Date: | 2001-01-15 22:32:26 |
Message-ID: | 3A637A7A.98494993@wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > In particular, this was and is a RedHat-made change. It does not break
> > anything that I am aware of, and allows the distributions to do their
> > thing as well.
> Note that this wasn't included in Red Hat Linux 7... it's been done
> since then, and I don't remember doing it myself (which of course
> doesn't mean I didn't do it :) - it might have been done for the S/390
> port, by the people working on that.
A non-conditional version (the conditional is my change) was included as
far back as RedHat 6.2.
> For most apps, it's just a question of configure working vs. configure
> failing on IA64 (there is no "tuning" as such, my choice of words
> wasn't too good). There may be something similar for S/390.
Can we test both ways (after your current project is done)?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-15 22:48:30 | Why is LockClassinfoForUpdate()'s mark4update a good idea? |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2001-01-15 22:25:50 | Re: RPMS for 7.1beta3 being uploaded. |