Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?

To: tech-pkg%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:26:34 +0100

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 08:07:13PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The replacement makefile does not correctly choose to build an extension
> module when postgis expects it to; my investigation so far is that the
> replacement Makefile is wrong.

Are you setting shmpdule for the case where a module is desired?
It might be necessary to make that overridable, e.g. shmodule ?= no.

Joerg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Greg Troxel

References:
- postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Tobias Nygren
- Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Greg Troxel
- Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
  - From: Greg Troxel

Prev by Date: Updated list of packages w/o DESTDIR support, incl maintainer
Next by Date: Re: Updated list of packages w/o DESTDIR support, incl maintainer
Previous by Thread: Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
Next by Thread: Re: postgresql Makefile.shlib replacement - should we be doing this?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index