Re: make caught doing what configure should...
От | Alfred Perlstein |
---|---|
Тема | Re: make caught doing what configure should... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010323085254.R9431@fw.wintelcom.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | make caught doing what configure should... (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: make caught doing what configure should...
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
* Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> [010323 08:47] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> writes: > >> Besides, I think the warning message is appropriate in any case, since > >> it lets bison-less people know that they had better not blow away gram.c > >> or hack on gram.y. > > > Er, not really, it (the warning) gets blown away by all the rest > > of the ./configure output. It might as well error out, not just > > warn, then you can actually see the message. > > Erroring out would be completely inappropriate unless we had made an > *accurate* check that gram.c was out of date. I think that's probably > a cure worse than the disease; we risk unnecessary configure failures > to gain, well, not a lot. You're right that configure's output is too > chatty for many people; but isn't there a "--quiet" option? Seems like > that's what they should be using if they don't want to see details. GRR! :) The make will still bomb out. It's my opinion that if the configure script detects a situation that will make compilation impossible _it_ should abort, not proceed to allow the user to run make when it knows it will not succeed. I mean it wouldn't make much sense for it to give a warning about all variants of "fork()" not existing would it? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: