Re: how to handle missing "prove"

On 11/3/14 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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...

Are you not seeing this in configure.in:

#
# Check for test tools
#
if test "$enable_tap_tests" = yes; then
AC_CHECK_PROGS(PROVE, prove)
if test -z "$PROVE"; then
AC_MSG_ERROR([prove not found])
fi
if test -z "$PERL"; then
AC_MSG_ERROR([Perl not found])
fi
fi