Thread

1. COBOL

   Jarom Hagen <jhagen@telematch.com> — 2001-03-06T19:02:40Z

   Why do I get a message about COBOL when doing a gmake install and what
   am I supposed to do about it?
   
   This is on a Solaris 2.7 system.
   
   Thanks,
   
   Jarom
   
   P.S.  The make was successful.
   
   gmake[3]: `SUBSYS.o' is up to date.
   gmake[3]: Leaving directory
   `/data/postgresql-7.0.3/src/backend/utils/time'
   gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/data/postgresql-7.0.3/src/backend/utils'
   /usr/local/bin/install -c -m 555 postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres
   You must have a COBOL system present to install this product
   gmake[1]: *** [install-bin] Error 1
   gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/data/postgresql-7.0.3/src/backend'
   gmake: *** [install] Error 2
   
   

2. Re: COBOL

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-03-08T00:38:30Z

   Jarom Hagen <jhagen@telematch.com> writes:
   > /usr/local/bin/install -c -m 555 postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres
   > You must have a COBOL system present to install this product
   
   Weird.  It looks like you have some exceedingly nonstandard program
   in /usr/local/bin/install --- certainly not what configure thought that
   that program would do, anyway.  Do you know where that program came from
   (perhaps a Sun COBOL package)?
   
   A nondestructive workaround would be to hand-edit src/Makefile.global's
   INSTALL variable to refer to our install-sh script (also in src/) rather
   than /usr/local/bin/install.  However, that install is going to bite a
   lot of other open-source packages that expect to find a standard-ish
   install script available, so I'd suggest deleting or at least renaming
   it...
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Depending on system install scripts (was Re: COBOL)

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-03-08T14:59:34Z

   Jarom Hagen <jhagen@telematch.com> writes:
   > Yes, we have an evil COBOL compiler from MicroFocus that put that install
   > script there.  I was really confused why postgres wanted a COBOL system. :-)
   
   I've suggested a couple of times that since we include install-sh in our
   distro anyway, it's pointless and unnecessarily risky to go looking for
   a platform-supplied install program.  However, I could never quite get
   anyone else to see the reasoning.  Now that I have this sterling example
   to point to, I'm going to start rattling the cage again.  Why don't we
   get rid of the configure-time search for 'install', and just always use
   our own script?
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   
   > On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 07:38:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
   >> Jarom Hagen <jhagen@telematch.com> writes:
   >>> /usr/local/bin/install -c -m 555 postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres
   >>> You must have a COBOL system present to install this product
   >> 
   >> Weird.  It looks like you have some exceedingly nonstandard program
   >> in /usr/local/bin/install --- certainly not what configure thought that
   >> that program would do, anyway.  Do you know where that program came from
   >> (perhaps a Sun COBOL package)?
   >> 
   >> A nondestructive workaround would be to hand-edit src/Makefile.global's
   >> INSTALL variable to refer to our install-sh script (also in src/) rather
   >> than /usr/local/bin/install.  However, that install is going to bite a
   >> lot of other open-source packages that expect to find a standard-ish
   >> install script available, so I'd suggest deleting or at least renaming
   >> it...
   
   

4. Re: Depending on system install scripts (was Re: COBOL)

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-03-08T23:13:10Z

   Tom Lane writes:
   
   > I've suggested a couple of times that since we include install-sh in our
   > distro anyway, it's pointless and unnecessarily risky to go looking for
   > a platform-supplied install program.  However, I could never quite get
   > anyone else to see the reasoning.  Now that I have this sterling example
   > to point to, I'm going to start rattling the cage again.  Why don't we
   > get rid of the configure-time search for 'install', and just always use
   > our own script?
   
   I've sent this to the Autoconf list for some comment, but in general I
   agree with you.
   
   -- 
   Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
   
   
   

5. Re: [HACKERS] Re: Depending on system install scripts (was Re: COBOL)

   Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> — 2001-03-09T00:18:43Z

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
   
   > Tom Lane writes:
   > 
   > > I've suggested a couple of times that since we include install-sh in our
   > > distro anyway, it's pointless and unnecessarily risky to go looking for
   > > a platform-supplied install program.  However, I could never quite get
   > > anyone else to see the reasoning.  Now that I have this sterling example
   > > to point to, I'm going to start rattling the cage again.  Why don't we
   > > get rid of the configure-time search for 'install', and just always use
   > > our own script?
   > 
   > I've sent this to the Autoconf list for some comment, but in general I
   > agree with you.
   
   All the programs which use the Cygnus configure tree (e.g., gdb, GNU
   binutils) always use install-sh rather than the system install
   program.
   
   The system install program can be faster.  But it isn't standardized,
   so if you want to be highly portable, using the shell script really is
   best.
   
   Ian
   
   ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
   TIP 83: Drop the vase and it will become a Ming of the past.
   		-- The Adventurer