| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v12 |
| Date: | 2022-09-07 05:10:37 |
| Message-ID: | 2679face-90c2-d031-01f5-dfadac710d6f@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.09.22 18:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> Is it worth running ninja -t missingdeps as a test? At the time we run tests
> we'll obviously have built and thus collected "real" dependencies, so we would
> have the necessary information to determine whether dependencies are missing.
> I think it'd be fine to do so only for ninja >= 1.11, rather than falling back
> to the llvm python implementation, which is much slower (0.068s vs
> 3.760s). And also because it's not as obvious how to include the python script.
>
> Alternatively, we could just document that ninja -t missingdeps is worth
> running. Perhaps at the top of the toplevel build.meson file?
In the GNU/make world there is a distinction between "check" and
"maintainer-check" for this kind of thing.
I think here if we put these kinds of things into a different, what's
the term, "suite", then that would be a clear way to collect them and be
able to run them all easily.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-09-07 05:18:40 | Re: PostgreSQL 15 Beta 4 release announcement draft |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-07 05:00:17 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v12 |