> On 16 Apr 2026, at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>> This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and doesn't rely on the buildfarm.
>
>> But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when passing
>> the local check can fail the buildfarm check?
>
> Yeah, my answer to that is still "why is this particular case more
> important than any other ABI breakage you might cause while hacking
> on a back branch?". I quite agree that being able to check for ABI
> breakage locally can be useful.
Agreed.
> But what we ought to do is make it
> easier for people to use libabigail for that without spinning up a
> local buildfarm instance. Perhaps we could extract the buildfarm's
> ABICompCheck.pm script into some standalone tool.
While I have zero insights into how complicated that would be, off the cuff it
seems like the right approach.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
