Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm?

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: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm?
Date: 2010-11-08 20:48:49
Message-ID: 4CD86231.4090500@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/08/2010 03:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On mån, 2010-11-08 at 15:01 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> First, the buildfarm doesn't build the docs. That's a deliberate
>>> decision, based on the fact that not every member has the required
>>> software installed. And second these targets only exist for 9.0 and/or
>>> later.
>> I'm aware of those issues. I'm just saying you could consolidate things
>> along those lines in the long term.
> Probably not: your proposal depends on having "make" available, which it
> won't be for Windows builds. I doubt Andrew wishes to implement
> make-equivalent logic in the buildfarm script.

No, and what is more, it runs counter to the philosophy of the
buildfarm, which is basically to do by automation what a human would do
by hand in building and testing Postgres.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-08 21:03:25 Re: Removing pgsql_tmp files
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-08 20:38:16 Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm?