Re: Tarball builds in the new world order

On 29.04.24 18:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> On 26.04.24 21:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Concretely, I'm proposing the attached. Peter didn't like
>>> PG_COMMIT_HASH, so I have PG_COMMIT_REFSPEC below, but I'm not
>>> wedded to that if a better name is proposed.
>
>> This seems ok to me, but note that we do have an equivalent
>> implementation in meson. If we don't want to update that in a similar
>> way, maybe we should disable it.
>
> OK. After poking at that for awhile, it seemed like "default to
> HEAD" fits into meson a lot better than "throw an error if the
> variable isn't set", so I switched to doing it like that.
> One reason is that AFAICT you can only set the variable during
> "meson setup" not during "ninja". This won't matter to the
> tarball build script, which does a one-off configuration run
> anyway. But for manual use, a movable target like HEAD might be
> more convenient given that behavior.

This patch looks good to me.