From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.2rc1 build requirements |
Date: | 2012-08-31 00:48:08 |
Message-ID: | CAJKUy5h74BddLLG6q6FZ3ZpmEdCE9g6cEoPfxtt-vWA7QGN+xA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 30/08/12 17:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> FWIW, that suggests that this version of jade is too old. I'm not sure
>>> that jade per se (as opposed to the successor project openjade) can be
>>> used to build our docs at all --- you should check whether this is
>>> openjade, or really the original project.
>>
>> It was the old jade. After I installed openjade, as suggested by Alvaro
>> and Jeff Janes, and re-ran ./configure the invocation line changed to
>> use openjade.
>>
>
> so, now the question is: should we accept jade at all in configure? or
> should we fail after not finding jade and report why?
>
the last one should read "openjade" ;)
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-08-31 01:14:23 | Re: 9.2rc1 build requirements |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-08-31 00:47:01 | Re: 9.2rc1 build requirements |