[postgis-devel] sql.in.c do we like not like?

[Paul Ramsey]

Mark c-a originally changed them to .c for good reasons that I cannot recall but will trace in email of necessary. They should so remain, particularly since a regression failure has already happened.

P.

On 2013-03-20, at 5:49 PM, "Paragon Corporation" <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:

> Recently strk made a change in trunk at  r11175, that screwed up on mingw-64
> (haven't check my 32-bit) the ability to distiguish between different
> versions of PostgreSQL.
> 
> Noted here: http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/2239
> 
> 
> This for 2.1 will affect my ability to build for PostgreSQL 9.0, but could
> potentially (if we ever get that spgist stuff in there), my ability to build
> for anything but PostgreSQL 9.3. Which would give me an excuse to goof off
> and just point fingers at strk :)
> 
> However that aside, from a philosophical standpoint, I LIKE HAVING .sql
> files that require C preprocessing to be suffixed with C.  I feel like we've
> had this discussion like 5 years ago whether we should keep the .c or take
> it out and decided to keep.
> 
> Note that we have other files that don't requires C processing like all the
> extension added .sql.in files and so forth and other intermediary.
> 
> What's everyones feeling about this change?
> 
> In PostGIS soldarity,
> Regina
> http://www.postgis.us
> http://postgis.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel