Обсуждение: TCL installation troubles

I started out with a Makefile.custom which has in it the following:

USE_TCL= true
TCL_LIB= -ltcl
X_LIBS= -L/usr/X11/lib
TK_LIB= -ltk

Did a "configure", without specifying --with-tcl, then did a "make
install". The installation process hangs forever at the
"mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh" stage:

make[2]: Entering directory `/opt/postgres/pgsql/src/bin/pgtclsh'
Makefile:20: Makefile.tcldefs: No such file or directory
/bin/sh mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh
make[2]: *** Deleting file `Makefile.tcldefs'
make[2]: *** [Makefile.tcldefs] Interrupt
make[1]: *** [install] Interrupt
make: *** [install] Interrupt

Did a ^C to exit. Then, I reran configure with --with-tcl specified this
time, and from the bin/pgtclsh directory did a "make":

golem$ make
Makefile:20: Makefile.tcldefs: No such file or directory
Makefile:22: Makefile.tkdefs: No such file or directory
/bin/sh mkMakefile.tkdefs.sh
/bin/sh mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh
gcc -I../../include -I../../backend   -O2  -m486  -Wall
-Wmissing-prototypes -I/usr/X11R6/include -I../../interfaces/libpgtcl   
-c pgtclAppInit.c -o pgtclAppInit.o

It looks like it now made the file which is required by the Makefile
(!?), so retrying "make" seems to run to completion.

I know there was quite a bit of discussion on the hackers list about how
to do this installation, but it doesn't seem quite right or at lesat
finished (though I know that the "USE_TCL" in my Makefile.custom might
have thrown it off a little bit). Did this result in any written docs on
how to install? Is someone prepared to fix up the Makefile to make it
more robust (e.g. it can't include a file which hasn't been constructed
yet, though there are ways around that by conditionally including it and
then running make from within that makefile).
                        - Tom

"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> I started out with a Makefile.custom which has in it the following:
> USE_TCL= true
> TCL_LIB= -ltcl
> X_LIBS= -L/usr/X11/lib
> TK_LIB= -ltk
> [ and it didn't work ]

There is a comment in Makefile.global.in that says:# Please do not edit USE_TCL and USE_TK by hand.
I dunno who put that in or why, but it seems relevant ;-)

An offhand look at configure.in shows that it is also deriving values
for TCL_CONFIG_SH and TK_CONFIG_SH, which need to be propagated into
places that Makefile.custom can't reach.  It looks to me like
mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh is probably not coping gracefully if an empty
string is substituted into it, which is what will happen right now
if USE_TCL isn't set during configure.  By setting USE_TCL in
Makefile.custom, you made the Makefiles think that Tcl support is
set up, but that doesn't take care of the subsidiary files.

> Is someone prepared to fix up the Makefile to make it
> more robust (e.g. it can't include a file which hasn't been constructed
> yet, though there are ways around that by conditionally including it and
> then running make from within that makefile).

Well, *that* is not the problem here.  GNU Make is smarter than you
realize about files that are included into a makefile --- it will
arrange to build the file if missing and then reread the makefile.
The problem is an inconsistent set of configuration values caused
by your hand-setting only some of the needed variables.  And you can't
even fix it by adding the missing variables to Makefile.custom.


This brings up an issue that I had been planning to raise in response
to Brook and Billy's disagreement a couple days ago about how to handle
"libdir" in the Makefiles (thread "Configure problem (and fix)").
Namely: I think we have gotten much too willing to use configure to
rewrite subsidiary files all over the distribution, rather than ensuring
that the configuration decisions are expressed in a central place.

I believe it is considered good Autoconf style to emit a Makefile (or
whatever) that is still hand-editable, so that one can go in and tweak
the configure script's decisions after the fact.  (In other words,
Brook had the right idea as to style: libdir should be left unexpanded
in all references, so that you can actually change it by hand in
Makefile.global if you are so minded.)

We have broken that capability entirely --- if you don't set a parameter
to configure, you have little choice but to go and re-run configure,
because chasing down all of the twenty or so output files that it
generates is not very practical.  (Which was Billy's point, or part of
it; and he's right too.)

This is not good, and it is not necessary.  AFAICS there is *no* good
reason that configure should be rewriting any subdirectory Makefile ---
they all include Makefile.global, so anything they need to know could
be stated, once, in Makefile.global.  With a little more work we could
probably make Makefile.global and config.h be the only files that
configure creates at all.  The various specialized shell scripts that
configure is currently editing could be fixed so that they get their
configuration info from the command line, whence it could be supplied
from Makefile.global via the subdirectory Makefile that is invoking the
script.

I'm not certain how best to handle the SQL scripts that need to know
where libdir is, but I can think of several possibilities, one being
that "create function" could have a library search path built into it,
thus pushing the knowledge of where libdir is into some C code (which
would probably be getting it from the PGLIB environment variable).
Or we could put the value of libdir into a system table somewhere that
the scripts can read at runtime.


It's awfully late to be fixing this stuff for 6.4, unless you want to
slip the release date again.  But I suggest revisiting it for 6.4.1,
and trying to consolidate configuration decisions into as few files
as possible.
        regards, tom lane

I'm not certain how best to handle the SQL scripts that need to know  where libdir is, but I can think of several
possibilities,one being  that "create function" could have a library search path built into it,  thus pushing the
knowledgeof where libdir is into some C code (which  would probably be getting it from the PGLIB environment variable).
Or we could put the value of libdir into a system table somewhere that  the scripts can read at runtime.
 

The way to handle this is to have rules in the Makefile that do the
substitution.  For example, something like the following Makefile
fragment will do the trick, even if the definitition of $libdir in
Makefile.global is modified after configure is run.
    SRCDIR=../../..    include ${SRCDIR}/Makefile.global    mklang.sql: mklang.sql.in ${SRCDIR}/Makefile.global     sed
<$< > $@ -e 's:@libdir@:${libdir}:'
 

If I remember correctly, this is used in contrib/spi and should be
common practice throughout.

Your suggestion of a single central Makefile.global/config.h to
contain all the configure decisions is a good one.  Together with
rules such as above in the various appropriate places, the problems of
variable expansion and post-configure modifications disappear.
Perhaps not for 6.4, though.

Cheers,
Brook

All good points. I had the USE_TCL in my Makefile.custom because for the
last few months/years that was the only way to get anything about tcl
touched by the installation afaik. I'll take it out.

But I'm pretty sure that doesn't explain all the breakage. Will continue
testing a bit (I *really* need to get back to the docs!), but the first
problem I saw was due to a missing file which was not built
automatically, and if you don't do a clean install you won't see the
problem again. That's why I could work with "cvs update -Pd" for weeks
and not see the breakage introduced, because by that point a
Makefile.tcldefs already existed.

> It's awfully late to be fixing this stuff for 6.4, unless you want to
> slip the release date again.  But I suggest revisiting it for 6.4.1,
> and trying to consolidate configuration decisions into as few files
> as possible.

I would strongly suggest that we fix it now, with small incremental
changes to make it work as currently designed. Releasing it broken
doesn't do much good.

So, I'm not sure I understand what the current design is really supposed
to do, but istm that we could do a conditional include of
Makefile.tcldefs, and have Makefile.tcldefs be a prerequisite for
$(PGMS). Like this:
 ifneq ($(wildcard Makefile.tclsh), )   include Makefile.tclsh endif ... all: Makefile.tclsh      $(MAKE) $(PGMS) ...

Any redesign after v6.4 is released should probably wait for v6.5, since
a v6.4.1 release won't get adequate testing. We managed to break the
Linux port of Postgres for v6.3.1 for similar reasons.
                   - Tom

"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> But I'm pretty sure that doesn't explain all the breakage. Will continue
> testing a bit (I *really* need to get back to the docs!), but the first
> problem I saw was due to a missing file which was not built
> automatically, and if you don't do a clean install you won't see the
> problem again. That's why I could work with "cvs update -Pd" for weeks
> and not see the breakage introduced, because by that point a
> Makefile.tcldefs already existed.

Ah, I see the problem!  The Makefile in .../pgtclsh has

Makefile.tcldefs:/bin/sh mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh

which is OK for building Makefile.tcldefs initially ... but it needs
a dependency so that Makefile.tcldefs will be rebuilt if
mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh has changed.

I think there is also a syntax error at the inclusion point ---
tabs before an include directive are a NO-NO.

Will fix, and check the other tcl makefiles for the same problem.

> So, I'm not sure I understand what the current design is really supposed
> to do, but istm that we could do a conditional include of
> Makefile.tcldefs, and have Makefile.tcldefs be a prerequisite for
> $(PGMS). Like this:

>   ifneq ($(wildcard Makefile.tclsh), )
>     include Makefile.tclsh
>   endif

Like I said, this is *not* necessary since we are assuming GNU Make.
Make already knows about (re)building included files as required;
see "How Makefiles Are Remade" in the GNU Make manual.
The problem is we're not giving it correct dependency info.
        regards, tom lane

>    I'm not certain how best to handle the SQL scripts that need to know
>    where libdir is, but I can think of several possibilities, one being
>    that "create function" could have a library search path built into it,
>    thus pushing the knowledge of where libdir is into some C code (which
>    would probably be getting it from the PGLIB environment variable).
>    Or we could put the value of libdir into a system table somewhere that
>    the scripts can read at runtime.
> 
> The way to handle this is to have rules in the Makefile that do the
> substitution.  For example, something like the following Makefile
> fragment will do the trick, even if the definitition of $libdir in
> Makefile.global is modified after configure is run.
> 
>      SRCDIR=../../..
>      include ${SRCDIR}/Makefile.global
>      mklang.sql: mklang.sql.in ${SRCDIR}/Makefile.global
>          sed < $< > $@ -e 's:@libdir@:${libdir}:'

The problem here is that you are duplicating the normal configure
processing in every Makefile that needs it.  This will get old very
fast, and hard to maintain.  configure does this already, and
automatically, in one place.  Yes, you must re-run configure, and you do
loose your changes, but pulling all the stuff into every Makefile seems
worse.




--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 

> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> > I started out with a Makefile.custom which has in it the following:
> > USE_TCL= true
> > TCL_LIB= -ltcl
> > X_LIBS= -L/usr/X11/lib
> > TK_LIB= -ltk
> > [ and it didn't work ]
> 
> There is a comment in Makefile.global.in that says:
>     # Please do not edit USE_TCL and USE_TK by hand.
> I dunno who put that in or why, but it seems relevant ;-)
> 
> An offhand look at configure.in shows that it is also deriving values
> for TCL_CONFIG_SH and TK_CONFIG_SH, which need to be propagated into
> places that Makefile.custom can't reach.  It looks to me like
> mkMakefile.tcldefs.sh is probably not coping gracefully if an empty
> string is substituted into it, which is what will happen right now
> if USE_TCL isn't set during configure.  By setting USE_TCL in
> Makefile.custom, you made the Makefiles think that Tcl support is
> set up, but that doesn't take care of the subsidiary files.

Our tcl/tk suff was terrible in earlier releases.  The new code from
Billy is quite nice.  It looks at things the way tcl does.  It looks for
tclConfig.sh in all the normal places, and gets the values from there.

We used to set those values manually, and had all sorts of tcl
version-specific tests that were certain to fail on many platforms.


> > Is someone prepared to fix up the Makefile to make it
> > more robust (e.g. it can't include a file which hasn't been constructed
> > yet, though there are ways around that by conditionally including it and
> > then running make from within that makefile).
> 
> Well, *that* is not the problem here.  GNU Make is smarter than you
> realize about files that are included into a makefile --- it will
> arrange to build the file if missing and then reread the makefile.
> The problem is an inconsistent set of configuration values caused
> by your hand-setting only some of the needed variables.  And you can't
> even fix it by adding the missing variables to Makefile.custom.
> 
> 
> This brings up an issue that I had been planning to raise in response
> to Brook and Billy's disagreement a couple days ago about how to handle
> "libdir" in the Makefiles (thread "Configure problem (and fix)").
> Namely: I think we have gotten much too willing to use configure to
> rewrite subsidiary files all over the distribution, rather than ensuring
> that the configuration decisions are expressed in a central place.
> 
> I believe it is considered good Autoconf style to emit a Makefile (or
> whatever) that is still hand-editable, so that one can go in and tweak
> the configure script's decisions after the fact.  (In other words,
> Brook had the right idea as to style: libdir should be left unexpanded
> in all references, so that you can actually change it by hand in
> Makefile.global if you are so minded.)
> 
> We have broken that capability entirely --- if you don't set a parameter
> to configure, you have little choice but to go and re-run configure,
> because chasing down all of the twenty or so output files that it
> generates is not very practical.  (Which was Billy's point, or part of
> it; and he's right too.)
> 
> This is not good, and it is not necessary.  AFAICS there is *no* good
> reason that configure should be rewriting any subdirectory Makefile ---
> they all include Makefile.global, so anything they need to know could
> be stated, once, in Makefile.global.  With a little more work we could
> probably make Makefile.global and config.h be the only files that
> configure creates at all.  The various specialized shell scripts that
> configure is currently editing could be fixed so that they get their
> configuration info from the command line, whence it could be supplied
> from Makefile.global via the subdirectory Makefile that is invoking the
> script.

I disagree here.  If people want to twiddle, they can after configure. 
People would much rather spell params to configure, rather than to edit
Makefiles.

The use of configure as a centralized test mechanism is a great leap
forward for us.  The basic problem is that Makefile's just can't do the
tests configure can, and any Makefile that needs a test needs a
Makefile.in, and is generated from configure.

Look in Makefile.global.  It is huge, and very hard to understand, even
for veteran developers.  I agree people should be able to twiddle with
Makefile.custom, but they MUST be required to supply the proper flags to
configure.  We can't go down the road of allowing them to avoid the
'configure' flags, and somehow enable things in Makefile.custom.  There
is no logical way to do that, and unless we want to prevent 'configure'
from doing the things it does so well, we will have to live with that
limitation.

I have my configure command and flags in a script and use run it as part
of the cvs update I do to keep my sources current.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 

The problem here is that you are duplicating the normal configure  processing in every Makefile that needs it.  This
willget old very  fast, and hard to maintain.  configure does this already, and  automatically, in one place.  Yes, you
mustre-run configure, and you do  loose your changes, but pulling all the stuff into every Makefile seems  worse.
 

We are only doing this for the *.sql files because they don't have
within them some ability to do argument expansion.  This is definitely
not good for all the Makefiles or source code, both of which can get
what they need in a single place (Makefile.global or config.h).  I am
not advocating changing that.  In fact, I am agreeing with the idea of
becoming more centralized for those parts of the code that can handle
it, i.e., Makefiles and C source.

For *.sql files there are two choices:

- have configure do the expansion.  This requires either special variables or expansion of lots of variables, neither
ofwhich is a good solution because they require unusual coding practices or prevent easy maintenance (i.e., change of
Makefile.global)later.
 

- have make do the expansion.  Certainly this puts some of configure's job into some Makefiles, but it offers the
advantagethat Makefile.global can be changed and those changes will propagate where they are needed.
 

It seems like we need a well-documented policy decision, perhaps
between the two following options (plus any others people want to
formulate).

1. we are only speaking (to my knowledge) of the library locations, so  use ${expanded_libdir} in *.sql files;
configurewill do the right  thing with these (i.e., only expand this but leave the "normal"  variables unexpanded so
thatchanges to Makefile.global propagate  easily), but changes to Makefile.global cannot touch the configured  choice
for${expanded_libdir}.  Changes to that require going  through all the *.sql files seeking those with the wrong
expansions(or reconfiguring).
 

2. add rules to those few Makefiles that require it so that make will  expand for *.sql based on the configured
choices. Changes to  Makefile.global will do the right thing.
 

The latter perhaps duplicates a tiny bit of configure, but is more
flexible.  If the rule is made generic (which it really is) it can
even be put into Makefile.global as a pattern target and not even
worried about in any of the Makefiles; if there is a *.sql.in it will
be made into *.sql with the correct substitution, end of story, no
need to be concerned with duplicating parts of configure all over the
place.  This follows the recent trend for a centralized set of rules
for shared library handling.  Why not a central place for the common
*.sql substitution as well, so that what is in Makefile.global gets
propagated?

Cheers,
Brook

>    The problem here is that you are duplicating the normal configure
>    processing in every Makefile that needs it.  This will get old very
>    fast, and hard to maintain.  configure does this already, and
>    automatically, in one place.  Yes, you must re-run configure, and you do
>    loose your changes, but pulling all the stuff into every Makefile seems
>    worse.
> 
> We are only doing this for the *.sql files because they don't have
> within them some ability to do argument expansion.  This is definitely
> not good for all the Makefiles or source code, both of which can get
> what they need in a single place (Makefile.global or config.h).  I am
> not advocating changing that.  In fact, I am agreeing with the idea of
> becoming more centralized for those parts of the code that can handle
> it, i.e., Makefiles and C source.

Oh.  :-)

I will go back to looking the other way.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Namely: I think we have gotten much too willing to use configure to
>> rewrite subsidiary files all over the distribution, rather than ensuring
>> that the configuration decisions are expressed in a central place.

> I disagree here.  If people want to twiddle, they can after configure. 
> People would much rather spell params to configure, rather than to edit
> Makefiles.

I agree with you, up to a point.  What happens if configure makes the
wrong choice for a given system?  For a person not familiar with
autoconf (which is most people) fixing its output is likely to be easier
than trying to fix the script.

> ... but they MUST be required to supply the proper flags to
> configure.  We can't go down the road of allowing them to avoid the
> 'configure' flags, and somehow enable things in Makefile.custom.  There
> is no logical way to do that, and unless we want to prevent 'configure'
> from doing the things it does so well, we will have to live with that
> limitation.

I certainly agree we should use configure for what it's designed to do,
namely make intelligent configuration settings.  I'm just saying that
it is better style to record each configuration choice in only one place
(or at least, as few places as possible) rather than make a bunch of
copies in a bunch of not-easily-found files.

This has advantages even if you don't consider hand adjustments to be
important.  Right now, if you want to find out what configure did on a
given system, you need to look at twenty different files.  (Some will
give you no new information, but which ones?)  Maintenance and support
will be easier if there are only a couple of files that configure
changes, and everything else just reads those files during build.
        regards, tom lane

> I certainly agree we should use configure for what it's designed to do,
> namely make intelligent configuration settings.  I'm just saying that
> it is better style to record each configuration choice in only one place
> (or at least, as few places as possible) rather than make a bunch of
> copies in a bunch of not-easily-found files.

No. There's one file, if the configure script is right...

./config.cache

:)

Taral

> I certainly agree we should use configure for what it's designed to do,
> namely make intelligent configuration settings.  I'm just saying that
> it is better style to record each configuration choice in only one place
> (or at least, as few places as possible) rather than make a bunch of
> copies in a bunch of not-easily-found files.
> 
> This has advantages even if you don't consider hand adjustments to be
> important.  Right now, if you want to find out what configure did on a
> given system, you need to look at twenty different files.  (Some will
> give you no new information, but which ones?)  Maintenance and support
> will be easier if there are only a couple of files that configure
> changes, and everything else just reads those files during build.

But your Makefiles become little 'sed' monsters, making it _more_
confusing for people to edit the Makefiles.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 

> But your Makefiles become little 'sed' monsters, making it _more_
> confusing for people to edit the Makefiles.

hmm... It's such a shame we can't insist on gmake.

Taral

[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > But your Makefiles become little 'sed' monsters, making it _more_
> > confusing for people to edit the Makefiles.
> 
> hmm... It's such a shame we can't insist on gmake.

We do insist on gmake.  Can't compile without it.

Like the term "sed monsters"?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Look in Makefile.global.  It is huge, and very hard to understand, even
> for veteran developers.  I agree people should be able to twiddle with
> Makefile.custom, but they MUST be required to supply the proper flags to
> configure.  We can't go down the road of allowing them to avoid the
> 'configure' flags, and somehow enable things in Makefile.custom.  There
> is no logical way to do that, and unless we want to prevent 'configure'
> from doing the things it does so well, we will have to live with that
> limitation.
> 
> I have my configure command and flags in a script and use run it as part
> of the cvs update I do to keep my sources current.
Must agree here...that was what screwed me on the --with-perl :)
I had that set to, and tried to do a 'make install' as myself, which
*should* have worked, except that it tried to install perl stuff too...
I've never used Makefile.custom myself, as much because I never
remember it is there as that its never been required (configure *should*
handle all that)...
In fact...other then those that are "veterans", how many ppl out
there even know it exists?  I think its more a legacy feature then
anything...

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Namely: I think we have gotten much too willing to use configure to
> >> rewrite subsidiary files all over the distribution, rather than ensuring
> >> that the configuration decisions are expressed in a central place.
> 
> > I disagree here.  If people want to twiddle, they can after configure. 
> > People would much rather spell params to configure, rather than to edit
> > Makefiles.
> 
> I agree with you, up to a point.  What happens if configure makes the
> wrong choice for a given system?  For a person not familiar with
> autoconf (which is most people) fixing its output is likely to be easier
> than trying to fix the script.
Huh?  Can you give an example of a Makefile that configure
modifies that could pose a problem?
Off the top of my head, the only stuff that configure modifies is
stuff like backend/port/Makefile, to add in OS-missing functions...for the
most part, that should be *all* that configure modifies...and, ya, we
could move that into Makefile.global...

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Taral wrote:

> > But your Makefiles become little 'sed' monsters, making it _more_
> > confusing for people to edit the Makefiles.
> 
> hmm... It's such a shame we can't insist on gmake.
Huh?  We do insist on gmake:

> /usr/bin/make
You must use GNU make to use Postgres.  It may be installed
on your system with the name 'gmake'.

NOTE:  If you are sure that you are using GNU make and you are      still getting this message, you may simply need to
run     the configure program.
 

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 

Just curious, but exactly *what* problem are we trying to fix here?  It
sounds to me like alot of discussion is going into a solution to a problem
that I don't know if exists or not, since I don't recall anyone stating a
problem...

If configure is making 'wrong guesses', then we should be able to tighten
up the tests so that they are correct...

Frankly, and, again, I'm basing this off of memory, I can't think of
anywhere in the 'configure hierarchy' where configure changes anything
major.  Most of the 'changes' are to Makefile.global and config.h (and,
hey, I may not be the one that put the configure seed in, but am I the one
that cursed over a good portion of the tests and extending it)...

So, can someone state *what* the problem is?

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >    The problem here is that you are duplicating the normal configure
> >    processing in every Makefile that needs it.  This will get old very
> >    fast, and hard to maintain.  configure does this already, and
> >    automatically, in one place.  Yes, you must re-run configure, and you do
> >    loose your changes, but pulling all the stuff into every Makefile seems
> >    worse.
> > 
> > We are only doing this for the *.sql files because they don't have
> > within them some ability to do argument expansion.  This is definitely
> > not good for all the Makefiles or source code, both of which can get
> > what they need in a single place (Makefile.global or config.h).  I am
> > not advocating changing that.  In fact, I am agreeing with the idea of
> > becoming more centralized for those parts of the code that can handle
> > it, i.e., Makefiles and C source.
> 
> Oh.  :-)
> 
> I will go back to looking the other way.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
>   maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> 

Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 

> So, can someone state *what* the problem is?

AFAICT, there's not a real problem here... Someone was just mentioning that
it isn't easy to override the configure defaults... they appear all OVER the
place. (every *.in file uses them)

The original problem was that the CPPSTDIN code I wrote for configure.in
doesn't detect the case where neither $(CPP) nor $(CPP) - work for cpp from
stdin... we have a possible fix (try /bin/cpp if both fail) which might go
in...

However, I still think that anyone who wants to override configure can
either modify config.cache or config.status... probably the latter in most
cases.

Taral

"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:
> All good points. I had the USE_TCL in my Makefile.custom because for the
> last few months/years that was the only way to get anything about tcl
> touched by the installation afaik. I'll take it out.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure that doesn't explain all the breakage. Will continue
> testing a bit (I *really* need to get back to the docs!), but the first
> problem I saw was due to a missing file which was not built
> automatically, and if you don't do a clean install you won't see the
> problem again. That's why I could work with "cvs update -Pd" for weeks
> and not see the breakage introduced, because by that point a
> Makefile.tcldefs already existed.
> 
> > It's awfully late to be fixing this stuff for 6.4, unless you want to
> > slip the release date again.  But I suggest revisiting it for 6.4.1,
> > and trying to consolidate configuration decisions into as few files
> > as possible.
> 
> I would strongly suggest that we fix it now, with small incremental
> changes to make it work as currently designed. Releasing it broken
> doesn't do much good.
> 
> So, I'm not sure I understand what the current design is really supposed
> to do, but istm that we could do a conditional include of
> Makefile.tcldefs, and have Makefile.tcldefs be a prerequisite for
> $(PGMS). Like this:
> 
>   ifneq ($(wildcard Makefile.tclsh), )
>     include Makefile.tclsh
>   endif
>   ...
>   all: Makefile.tclsh
>        $(MAKE) $(PGMS)
>   ...
> 
> Any redesign after v6.4 is released should probably wait for v6.5, since
> a v6.4.1 release won't get adequate testing. We managed to break the
> Linux port of Postgres for v6.3.1 for similar reasons.
> 
>                     - Tom

The breakage with the missing file occured when you defined USE_TCL in 
Makefile.custom.  That caused the make file (probably in bin/plpgtcl) to try 
to include Makefile.[tcl|tk]defs.  Since that file did not exist, it tried to 
build it by executing MkMakefile.[tcl|tk]defs.sh, which didn't exist because 
configure did not build it since it did not know to build the tcl/tk support 
files.

Now for my 2 cents worth in the configure debate.

Why use configure?  Why not have a makefile and config.h file that would be 
edited by hand to configure and build postgresql?

PostgresSQL is a large system with many build options.  Do you want TCL 
support? TK support? perl support? C++ libraries?  Using autoconf and 
configure makes correctly building PostgreSQL for many differenct 
OS/architecture easier. If configure is going to be used, then we should use 
it to configure the system and not make it easy or desirable to circumvent 
configure.  This mean discouraging editing of make files by hand, because 
there is no way to know what side effects and problems will occur if hand 
editing is performed.  To this end, I believe that configure should only 
subsitute fully expanded values. If you want to change the prefix directory 
(or any other option that is handled by a configure command line option, then 
re-run configure.  That is what it is there for.  If configure won't create a 
buildable version of postgresql on your system, then fix configure and send in 
the patches.

Of course, we are now entering into areas of philosophical differences which should make for interesting discussions
:-)
-- 
____       | Billy G. Allie    | Domain....: Bill.Allie@mug.org
|  /|      | 7436 Hartwell     | Compuserve: 76337,2061
|-/-|----- | Dearborn, MI 48126| MSN.......: B_G_Allie@email.msn.com
|/  |LLIE  | (313) 582-1540    |