| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |
| Date: | 2014-10-31 00:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | 13677.1414714433@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-10-30 19:53:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, for example, you don't have and don't want to install IPC::Run.
> Well, that's what the hypothetical configure test is for. I see little
> reason in this specific case to do anything more complicated than check
> for prove and IPC::Run in configure and use them if necessary.
As I said upthread, that approach seems to me to be contrary to the
project policy about how configure should behave. If you have selected
(or, someday, defaulted to) --enable-tap-tests, configure should *fail*
if you don't have the tools to run the tests. Not silently disable tests
that we have decided are valuable. How exactly would that be different
from silently omitting readline support if we don't find that library?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-10-31 00:15:28 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-10-31 00:11:35 | Re: how to handle missing "prove" |