On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> Why not ? The caller is attempting to make an unsupported target,
> how's that different from calling `make unexistent` ?
That's a good point, but what Tom wrote is along the lines of my
concerns also, especially his last
Sandro Santilli writes:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>>> I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving
>>> a success exit code even when it is unsupported.
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:20:25AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> > I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving
> > a success exit code even when it is unsupported.
> >
> > The attached patch fixes that.
>
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving
> a success exit code even when it is unsupported.
>
> The attached patch fixes that.
Hmm. I'm not 100% sure that the existing behavior is wrong.
--
I noticed that the `check` Makefile rule imported by PGXS is giving
a success exit code even when it is unsupported.
The attached patch fixes that.
--strk;
() Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer
/\ https://strk.kbt.io/services.html
>From 43fa28f141871a6efdd3e5d0c9ec8cc537585ff5 Mon