> On 16 Apr 2026, at 03:46, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> writes: >> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and >>> doesn't rely on the buildfarm. > >> But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when passing >> the local check can fail the buildfarm check? > > Yeah, my answer to that is still "why is this particular case more > important than any other ABI breakage you might cause while hacking > on a back branch?". I quite agree that being able to check for ABI > breakage locally can be useful.
Agreed. > But what we ought to do is make it > easier for people to use libabigail for that without spinning up a > local buildfarm instance. Perhaps we could extract the buildfarm's > ABICompCheck.pm script into some standalone tool. While I have zero insights into how complicated that would be, off the cuff it seems like the right approach. -- Daniel Gustafsson
