Re: how to handle missing "prove"

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 10/30/14 9:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks generally reasonable, but I thought you were planning to choose a
>> different option name?

> Yeah, but I couldn't think of a better one. (Anything involving,
> "enable-perl-..." would have been confusing with regard to PL/Perl.)

Committed patch looks good, but should we also add the stanza we discussed
in Makefile.global.in concerning defining $(prove) in terms of "missing"
if we didn't find it? I think the behavior of HEAD when you ask for
--enable-tap-tests but don't have "prove" might be less than ideal.

regards, tom lane