| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: make everything target |
| Date: | 2010-01-27 23:02:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4B60C5FF.4010609@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
>> On ons, 2010-01-27 at 10:41 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to have an "everything" target that would build "all + html +
>>> contrib".
>>>
>
>
>> +10
>>
>
>
>>> And maybe an "installcheck-everything" target that would run
>>> installcheck for src, pl and contrib.
>>>
>
>
>> +100
>>
>
> These proposals sound reasonable to me too, but is "everything" an
> appropriate target name, or is there some other/better convention?
>
I'm not invested in the name. Suggestions welcome.
> I assume we don't want to mess with the default behavior (I don't
> want to, anyway).
>
>
Me either, although it's a bit of a pity history has stuck us with the
default behaviour.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-27 23:11:01 | Re: Add on_perl_init and proper destruction to plperl [PATCH] |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-27 22:51:29 | Re: make everything target |