Re: how to handle missing "prove"

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.)

> One minor nitpick: perhaps the --help description of the option should
> read
> 
> +  --enable-tap-tests      enable TAP tests (requires Perl and IPC::Run)
> 
> because in practice it'll be much more likely that people will be missing
> IPC::Run than that they'll be missing Perl altogether.

Done.

> Also, shouldn't we have it fail rather than just skipping tests if
> IPC::Run is missing?

Done.

I was holding back on that pending the discussion on IPC::Cmd, but I
don't think that will happen anytime soon.