From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "daniel(at)yesql(dot)se" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target |
Date: | 2021-08-27 06:02:27 |
Message-ID: | YSh/8+1yKu+ZD4uH@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-08-27 06:10:23 | Re: perlcritic: prohibit map and grep in void conext |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-08-27 05:49:16 | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |