From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: make world and install-world without docs |
Date: | 2021-07-01 19:39:16 |
Message-ID: | a8cede36-9f8a-466e-0a6d-1d88a73861ed@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.07.21 16:47, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 6/2/21 4:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> I'm inclined to agree with Alvaro that the messages are at best an
>>> oddity. Standard Unix practice is to be silent on success.
>> We've been steadily moving towards less chatter during builds.
>> I'd be good with dropping these messages in HEAD, but doing so
>> in the back branches might be inadvisable.
> OK, I think on reflection new targets will be cleaner. What I suggest is
> the attached, applied to all branches, followed by removal of the four
> noise messages in just HEAD.
This naming approach is a bit problematic. For example, we have
"install-bin" in src/backend/, which is specifically for only installing
binaries, not data files etc. (hence the name). Your proposal would
confuse this scheme.
I think we should also take a step back here and consider: We had "all",
which wasn't "all" enough, then we had "world", now we have
"world-minus-a-bit", but it's still more than "all". It's like we are
trying to prove the continuum hypothesis here.
I think we had consensus on the make variable approach, so I'm confused
why a different solution was committed and backpatched without discussion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-07-01 19:42:41 | Fix uninitialized variable access (src/backend/utils/mmgr/freepage.c) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-01 19:10:05 | Re: Preventing abort() and exit() calls in libpq |