On 10/30/2014 09:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-10-30 21:03:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> On 2014-10-30 20:13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> As I said upthread, that approach seems to me to be contrary to the
>>>> project policy about how configure should behave.
>>> I don't think that holds much water. There's a fair amount of things
>>> that configure detects automatically. I don't think the comparison to
>>> plperl or such is meaningful - that's a runtime/install time
>>> difference. These tests are not.
>> Meh. Right now, it's easy to dismiss these tests as unimportant,
>> figuring that they play little part in whether the completed build
>> is reliable. But that may not always be true. If they do become
>> a significant part of our test arsenal, silently omitting them will
>> not be cool for configure to do.
> Well, I'm all for erroring out if somebody passed --enable-foo-tests and
> the prerequisites aren't there. What I *am* against is requiring an
> explicit flag to enable them because then they'll just not be run in
> enough environments. And that's what's much more likely to cause
> unnoticed bugs.
When this is properly sorted out I will enable this in the buildfarm
default configuration. So I don't think that's going to be an issue in
the long term.
cheers
andrew