On 2022-09-04 Su 09:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 2022-09-02 Fr 13:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... However, those aren't arguments against
>>> making it optional-to-build like the PLs are.
>> That seems reasonable. Note that the buildfarm client would then need an
>> extra build step.
> Not sure why there'd be an extra build step; I'd envision it more
> like "configure ... --with-ecpg" and the main build step either
> does it or not.
Ah, ok, makes sense.
> You would need to make the ecpg-check step
> conditional, though, so it's moot: we'd have to fix the buildfarm
> first in any case, unless it's default-enabled which would seem
> a bit odd.
>
>
*nod*
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com