Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 7/31/17 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Really? That seems pretty broken, independently of how many variables >> are affected. But the ones you'd be most likely to do that with are >> using AC_PATH_PROG already, I think. Having lesser-used program variables >> behave inconsistently doesn't seem like much of a win.
> Well, if we're fiddling around here, I would change them all to > AC_CHECK_PROG if possible. Especially the PYTHON one annoys me all the > time. CC is another one I set occasionally. I will object really really strongly to that, as it is 180 degrees from where I think we need to go, and will make things a lot worse than before on the documentation aspect that I was concerned about to begin with. If we need to fix things so that AC_PATH_PROG will honor a non-path input value, then let's do that. But let's not make the build system shakier/less reproducible than it is already. I suggest that we could inject logic like this: if VARIABLE-is-set-and-value-isn't-already-absolute; then VARIABLE=`which $VARIABLE 2>/dev/null` fi in front of the existing logic for AC_PATH_PROG(VARIABLE,...). Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure. Another idea, which would probably require replacing _AC_PATH_PROG rather than just putting a wrapper around it, would be to let it perform its normal path walk but using the given word instead of $ac_word. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers