Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target
Date
Msg-id YSh/8+1yKu+ZD4uH@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target  (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target  (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>)
Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target  (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:08:16AM +0000, Jacob Champion wrote:
> (Things would get hairier if someone included the SSL Makefile
> somewhere else, but I don't see anyone doing that now and I don't know
> why someone would.)

That would not happen.  Hopefully.

> But -- if I do spend the time to answer your broader question, does it
> actually help my case? Someone could always add more stuff to
> Makefile.global. It sounds like the actual fear is that we don't
> understand what might be interacting with a very broad global target,
> and that fear is too great to try a scoped change, in a niche Makefile,
> early in a release cycle, to improve a development issue multiple
> committers have now complained about.
>
> If _that's_ the case, then our build system is holding all of us
> hostage. Which is frustrating to me. Should I shift focus to help with
> that, first?

Fresh ideas in this area are welcome, yes.  FWIW, I'll try to spend a
couple of hours on what you had upthread in 0002 for the
simplification of SSL stuff generation and see if I can come up with
something.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Added schema level support for publication.