Re: how to handle missing "prove"

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 11/2/14 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Committed patch looks good, but should we also add the stanza we discussed
>> in Makefile.global.in concerning defining $(prove) in terms of "missing"
>> if we didn't find it?  I think the behavior of HEAD when you ask for
>> --enable-tap-tests but don't have "prove" might be less than ideal.

> configure will now fail when "prove" is not found.

If there's a commit that goes with this statement, you neglected to push it...
        regards, tom lane