New member says hello

Started by Nonameabout 21 years ago5 messages
#1Noname
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca

Hi All,

I am doing a port of postgreSQL v8 to OS/2.

I have successfully built a port (using the beta 4 code), and am starting
testing.

I will be updating my port with the beta 5 code in the next couple of
days.

How do I go about getting OS/2 specific changes for source code and
makefiles merged with the regular release code?

Lorne Sunley
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------

#2Noname
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: New member says hello

In <21637.1101523806@sss.pgh.pa.us>, on 11/26/04
at 09:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> said:

lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca writes:

How do I go about getting OS/2 specific changes for source code and
makefiles merged with the regular release code?

Send a proposed patch to pgsql-patches for discussion.

If you're hoping to get this into 8.0, it had better arrive soon and be a
very small patch ...

regards, tom lane

Thanks...

It may have to be for 8.0.1 there are a lot of changes to the makefiles to
accomodate the if(($portname), ibmos2) stuff and the src/port/ibmos2 code

BTW - has anyone else noticed that there are a number of places where
there is a test for HAVE_OPTRESET instead of HAVE_INT_OPTRESET?

Lorne

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: New member says hello

lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca writes:

How do I go about getting OS/2 specific changes for source code and
makefiles merged with the regular release code?

Send a proposed patch to pgsql-patches for discussion.

If you're hoping to get this into 8.0, it had better arrive soon
and be a very small patch ...

regards, tom lane

#4Noname
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
In reply to: Tom Lane (#3)
Re: New member says hello

In <26876.1101578726@sss.pgh.pa.us>, on 11/27/04
at 01:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> said:

lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca writes:

at 09:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> said:

If you're hoping to get this into 8.0, it had better arrive soon and be a
very small patch ...

It may have to be for 8.0.1 there are a lot of changes to the makefiles to
accomodate the if(($portname), ibmos2) stuff and the src/port/ibmos2 code

More like 8.1, then. A not-previously-supported port is going to be seen
as a new feature, not a bug fix, especially if the changes are less than
trivial.

Sounds good to me...

The makefile changes are more than trivial (18 new and/or changed files)
and the build environment would have to be tested on supported platforms
to make sure nothing got broken. There are a few changes to the C code
(28 new and/or changed files) and H files (9 new and/or changed files). So
far.... :-)

BTW - has anyone else noticed that there are a number of places where
there is a test for HAVE_OPTRESET instead of HAVE_INT_OPTRESET?

Good catch ... that's definitely broken.

Sometimes doing a new port finds problems that are not noticed otherwise.

I'll just forge ahead with the OS/2 stuff and get patches ready for a post
8.0.0 GA

Lorne

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------

#5Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Noname (#2)
Re: New member says hello

lsunley@mb.sympatico.ca writes:

at 09:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> said:

If you're hoping to get this into 8.0, it had better arrive soon and be a
very small patch ...

It may have to be for 8.0.1 there are a lot of changes to the makefiles to
accomodate the if(($portname), ibmos2) stuff and the src/port/ibmos2 code

More like 8.1, then. A not-previously-supported port is going to be
seen as a new feature, not a bug fix, especially if the changes are
less than trivial.

BTW - has anyone else noticed that there are a number of places where
there is a test for HAVE_OPTRESET instead of HAVE_INT_OPTRESET?

Good catch ... that's definitely broken.

regards, tom lane