Re: how to handle missing "prove"

On 11/3/14 3:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On 11/2/14 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
>> configure will now fail when "prove" is not found.
> 
> If there's a commit that goes with this statement, you neglected to push it...

Are you not seeing this in configure.in:

#
# Check for test tools
#
if test "$enable_tap_tests" = yes; then AC_CHECK_PROGS(PROVE, prove) if test -z "$PROVE"; then   AC_MSG_ERROR([prove
notfound]) fi if test -z "$PERL"; then   AC_MSG_ERROR([Perl not found]) fi
 
fi