Re: how to handle missing "prove" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: how to handle missing "prove"
Date
Msg-id 25640.1415045472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: how to handle missing "prove"  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: how to handle missing "prove"  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 11/2/14 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Committed patch looks good, but should we also add the stanza we discussed
>> in Makefile.global.in concerning defining $(prove) in terms of "missing"
>> if we didn't find it?  I think the behavior of HEAD when you ask for
>> --enable-tap-tests but don't have "prove" might be less than ideal.

> configure will now fail when "prove" is not found.

If there's a commit that goes with this statement, you neglected to push it...
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing FIN_CRC32 calls in logical replication code
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices