Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2022-09-02 Fr 13:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... However, those aren't arguments against
>> making it optional-to-build like the PLs are.
> That seems reasonable. Note that the buildfarm client would then need an
> extra build step.
Not sure why there'd be an extra build step; I'd envision it more
like "configure ... --with-ecpg" and the main build step either
does it or not. You would need to make the ecpg-check step
conditional, though, so it's moot: we'd have to fix the buildfarm
first in any case, unless it's default-enabled which would seem
a bit odd.
regards, tom lane
