On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The current logic in src/test/Makefile, particularly the way that
>>> the modules subdirectory is handled, seems pretty ugly/convoluted
>>> anyway. I wonder why it was done that way rather than just
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The current logic in src/test/Makefile, particularly the way that
>> the modules subdirectory is handled, seems pretty ugly/convoluted
>> anyway. I wonder why it was done that way rather than just ensuring
>> that modules/ doesn't do anything for "make
Tom Lane wrote:
> The current logic in src/test/Makefile, particularly the way that
> the modules subdirectory is handled, seems pretty ugly/convoluted
> anyway. I wonder why it was done that way rather than just ensuring
> that modules/ doesn't do anything for "make install"?
Because we do want
Michael Paquier writes:
> A couple of binaries in src/test, that are not part of the main make
> flow, can be built but they are actually not ignored in the tree:
> examples/testlibpq
> examples/testlibpq2
> examples/testlibpq3
> examples/testlibpq4
> examples/testlo
> exam
Hi all,
A couple of binaries in src/test, that are not part of the main make
flow, can be built but they are actually not ignored in the tree:
examples/testlibpq
examples/testlibpq2
examples/testlibpq3
examples/testlibpq4
examples/testlo
examples/testlo64
locale/test-ct
