pgsql: update files for beta3

scrappy@postgresql.org (Marc G. Fournier) writes:

configure (r1.570 -> r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570&r2=1.571)

It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some time. I'm a bit concerned about the
implications of switching to a version that's got zero track record for
us, and that AFAIK no other committers have installed. I'd rather see
a switch happen at the start of a devel cycle than at beta3; and in any
case it's got to be coordinated so that what is in the release doesn't
vary depending on who committed last.

regards, tom lane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61, so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...

- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 23:37:22 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

scrappy@postgresql.org (Marc G. Fournier) writes:

configure (r1.570 -> r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570
&r2=1.571)

It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some time. I'm a bit concerned about the
implications of switching to a version that's got zero track record for
us, and that AFAIK no other committers have installed. I'd rather see
a switch happen at the start of a devel cycle than at beta3; and in any
case it's got to be coordinated so that what is in the release doesn't
vary depending on who committed last.

regards, tom lane

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHPSCd4QvfyHIvDvMRApMlAJsFhy+DGsSXMzy6bH0FAEQl11zBKwCfbIQ6
66Upa6SjHDUccKm+Mun/l+g=
=rNQj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Lane wrote:

scrappy@postgresql.org (Marc G. Fournier) writes:

configure (r1.570 -> r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570&amp;r2=1.571)

It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some time. I'm a bit concerned about the
implications of switching to a version that's got zero track record for
us, and that AFAIK no other committers have installed. I'd rather see
a switch happen at the start of a devel cycle than at beta3; and in any
case it's got to be coordinated so that what is in the release doesn't
vary depending on who committed last.

O.k., so what do you want to do? Or more to the point, is there
something I can help with? I have machines with 2.59... Marc do you have
any left with 2.59?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61, so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 20:49:04 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61,
so can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHPSIc4QvfyHIvDvMRAoZCAJ9MF5wdAcB0aUTyT8qo62+DF61wywCfQLJF
kSsl+ZTYu9SC+OEuA2NGPfU=
=EDTa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 20:49:04 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61,
so can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...

*shrug* :) helping where I can... number is on pmt if you need me :)

Joshua D. Drake

"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

scrappy@postgresql.org (Marc G. Fournier) writes:

configure (r1.570 -> r1.571)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/configure?r1=1.570&amp;r2=1.571)

It appears that Marc has got autoconf 2.61 installed now, instead of the
2.59 that we've been using for some time. I'm a bit concerned about the
implications of switching to a version that's got zero track record for
us, and that AFAIK no other committers have installed. I'd rather see
a switch happen at the start of a devel cycle than at beta3; and in any
case it's got to be coordinated so that what is in the release doesn't
vary depending on who committed last.

Why is configure even checked in to CVS?

That wouldn't change any of your questions though, it just shifts the point in
the process at which the version of autoconf has to be controlled to the
release tarball creation step rather than when people are checking in changes.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

'k, 2.59 isn't even available in FreeBSD ports anymore, only 2.13 and 2.61, so
can someone else please run autoconf and commit, and I'll re-tag ...

Done

regards, tom lane

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...

Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
update back-branch configure scripts properly. It'd probably be a good
idea to improve your release scripts so that they select the "right"
autoconf version for each release branch. You'll need multiple local
installations though, instead of depending on freebsd ports for the
"one true autoconf".

Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...

Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
update back-branch configure scripts properly. It'd probably be a good
idea to improve your release scripts so that they select the "right"
autoconf version for each release branch. You'll need multiple local
installations though, instead of depending on freebsd ports for the
"one true autoconf".

Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.

I say have a VMWare instance running with the "one true" autoconf that
is currently accepted. That way we don't have to make that distinction.
Autoconf 2.59 is going to be predominantly in the wild (rhel 5, centos5
, dapper, debian) for at least another 3-4 years.

Joshua D. Drake

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

I can't commit but I can give access to a 2.59 version...

Well, easiest is for Tom to run autoconf 2.59 and commit ... or Bruce ...

Locally I've got several autoconf versions installed so that I can
update back-branch configure scripts properly. It'd probably be a good
idea to improve your release scripts so that they select the "right"
autoconf version for each release branch. You'll need multiple local
installations though, instead of depending on freebsd ports for the
"one true autoconf".

Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.

That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to have
drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHPShG4QvfyHIvDvMRAm48AJ9D7FOT0EyASLJuBmxeLbE+464HdgCg54fJ
xQOk7rf3xBmwEreHKzlk3C4=
=6M0k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to have
drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...

If we do that, (I honestly don't know) what happens on versions that are
running an older version of autoconf? I mean, if everything is put
together with 2.61, are 2.59 versions going to have an issue?

Joshua D. Drake

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, November 15, 2007 21:21:59 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to
have drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...

If we do that, (I honestly don't know) what happens on versions that are
running an older version of autoconf? I mean, if everything is put together
with 2.61, are 2.59 versions going to have an issue?

I believe Tom was suggesting upgrading and testing them to make sure of that
... instead of having 7.3 using one version, 7.4 and 8.0 usnig another, and 8.1
and beyond using a third ... I know right now we have three different versions
'required', just can't recall which fall under which ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHPSnf4QvfyHIvDvMRAjZSAJ9D28LaQ3abmr6Mb4/vWpwACR602ACgvBP9
18xCapgj6muv2SuYNrLzv+8=
=HvQG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.

That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to have
drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...

Perhaps so, but it'd cost us a fair amount of up-front work to verify
that we don't break the back branches by updating their configure
scripts. Not something I want to touch on a last-minute basis ;-)

[ digs for a moment... ] According to my notes we are using autoconf
2.53 for versions 7.3-8.0 and 2.59 for the later branches. So 2.13
is already out of the picture. It might be that 2.53 to 2.59 to 2.61
is not all that big a jump in reality, but I've got to say that it
scares me when I read commit-log entries that report ten thousand lines
worth of diffs in a 20K-line script ...

regards, tom lane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:40:31 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:03:46 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

Either that or we try to move up all supported back branches to the
latest autoconf version; which might be a good idea but it scares me
a bit.

That would be a good idea, and really simply things ... FreeBSD seems to have
drop'd off support for all but 2.13 and 2.61 ...

Perhaps so, but it'd cost us a fair amount of up-front work to verify
that we don't break the back branches by updating their configure
scripts. Not something I want to touch on a last-minute basis ;-)

Wasn't suggesting 'last-minute', but maybe post 8.3 release, while things are a
bit quiet?

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHPS7E4QvfyHIvDvMRAvgVAKDZ4OlC6dcwIeTu4APXYTfQ6XArlwCdEtBz
ApsX48H6dalG+KJDVy0m+rA=
=RFnE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

- --On Friday, November 16, 2007 00:40:31 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:

Perhaps so, but it'd cost us a fair amount of up-front work to verify
that we don't break the back branches by updating their configure
scripts. Not something I want to touch on a last-minute basis ;-)

Wasn't suggesting 'last-minute', but maybe post 8.3 release, while things are a
bit quiet?

Sure, if someone wants to do the legwork early in 8.4 devel cycle, I'm
all for it ...

regards, tom lane

Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Tom Lane:

[ digs for a moment... ] According to my notes we are using autoconf
2.53 for versions 7.3-8.0 and 2.59 for the later branches. So 2.13
is already out of the picture. It might be that 2.53 to 2.59 to 2.61
is not all that big a jump in reality, but I've got to say that it
scares me when I read commit-log entries that report ten thousand lines
worth of diffs in a 20K-line script ...

Yeah, I think it's a bit insane. Keeping a few Autoconf versions around isn't
hard at all. We have been doing it for years. (Hint: ./configure; make;
make install)

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:

I know right now we have
three different versions 'required', just can't recall which fall under
which ...

You just look into the files to see what was used last time.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Am Freitag, 16. November 2007 schrieb Tom Lane:

[ digs for a moment... ] According to my notes we are using autoconf
2.53 for versions 7.3-8.0 and 2.59 for the later branches. So 2.13
is already out of the picture. It might be that 2.53 to 2.59 to 2.61
is not all that big a jump in reality, but I've got to say that it
scares me when I read commit-log entries that report ten thousand lines
worth of diffs in a 20K-line script ...

Yeah, I think it's a bit insane. Keeping a few Autoconf versions around isn't
hard at all. We have been doing it for years. (Hint: ./configure; make;
make install)

Yeah.

I reiterate my point that I think it'd be good with a dedicated VM to build
the snapshots and releases off, that isn't affected by other changes to
whatever machine happens to be used. This VM could then be given all the
required autoconf versions, and it'd stay stable - and wouldn't be affected
by choices by whatever distribution is used.

Last time it was flex (or was it bison). This time autoconf (which I
beleive has happened before as well). It *will* happen again. If we move to
the latest autoconf now, it will just happen the next time <distro of
choice> upgrades what they have. (I say distro of choice. In thi case it's
freebsd, but I'm sure it happens on other platforms as well. For example, I
notice my Gutsy box has a different autoconf from my Dapper one. Which is
why I do my pg autoconf work on the dapper one)

//Magnus