On 10/28/14 9:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> Here is a patch to use "missing" to handle the case when "prove" is not >> present. > > Wouldn't it be easier to do what we do for Perl, viz in Makefile.global.in > > ifneq (@PERL@,) > # quoted to protect pathname with spaces > PERL = '@PERL@' > else > PERL = $(missing) perl > endif
Yeah, maybe. > However, with either of these approaches, "make check-world" gets a hard > failure if you lack "prove". Is that what we want? It's certainly not > very consistent with what you've been doing to make the tests just slide > by (rather than fail on) missing/too old Perl modules. The patch has -$(missing) prove and the - will make make ignore failures. Admittedly, that is very well hidden. > ISTM that the project policy for external components like this has been > "don't rely on them unless user says to use them, in which case fail if > they aren't present". So perhaps what we ought to have is a configure > switch along the lines of "--enable-tap-tests". If you don't specify it, > prove_check expands to nothing. If you do specify it, we fail if we > lack any of the expected support, both "prove" and whatever the agreed-on > set of Perl modules is. That's also a good idea. (I might think of a different option name, because "TAP" is an output format, not a piece of software. pg_regress could output TAP as well, for example.) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers