Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> Peter, do you remember that?
> BE_DLLLIBS; see Makefile.cygwin for example. (AIX has a similar
> requirement, but handles it differently for bizarre reasons.)
Right, thanks.
> Personally, I think the two-level namespace feature is the opposite of
> useful and we should stick with -flat_namespace, but I might have to give
> in in the interest of having PostgreSQL behave like other packages on that
> system.
What do you have against the two-level namespace stuff? I find the
arguments at
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/ReleaseNotes/DeveloperTools/TwoLevelNamespaces.html
moderately convincing. It doesn't seem like linking a symbol from
library A instead of the expected library B would ever be a good idea.
And I read the document as warning that Apple isn't promising there will
never be name conflicts across standard libraries.
It is kind of a PITA to have to be careful to link a shlib against
everything it will use at runtime, but since we have some other
supported platforms where that's required anyway, we don't really have
a choice about maintaining the code to do it. Given that, I'm actually
kind of attracted to converting the Darwin port to become a platform
where that's required, because Darwin is a platform that I have easy
access to and test on fairly regularly (when my laptop is working,
anyway ;-)). We'd be less likely to suffer bit rot in this respect
if the Darwin port required it too.
regards, tom lane