Re: how to handle missing "prove"

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: how to handle missing "prove"
Date: 2014-11-03 19:39:30
Message-ID: 5457D9F2.6030504@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-11-03 19:56:05 Re: tracking commit timestamps
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2014-11-03 19:36:33 Re: Patch: add recovery_timeout option to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code