From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Seneca Cunningham <scunning(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Date: | 2005-12-02 03:58:10 |
Message-ID: | 200512020358.jB23wAY17188@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-ports |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Can't it just be --with-libedit? That seems awfully verbose,
> >> particularly seeing that configure doesn't handle switch abbreviation.
>
> > The problem is that we need a clear way to say we don't want any line
> > editing. Right now we do it with --without-readline. Also, we already
> > test for libedit if we don't find readline. Would we stop doing that?
>
> Well, we could rename --without-readline to --without-editing, but
> I think this would just break people's existing expectations without
> adding much. I don't see a problem with documenting
>
> --with-libedit prefer libedit over libreadline
>
> and leaving the rest alone.
That seems confusing because you would assume the default,
--without-libedit, would not use libedit, but it does.
I trimmed it down to:
--with-bonjour build with Bonjour support
--with-openssl build with OpenSSL support
--with-prefer-libedit prefer libedit over readline
--without-readline do not use Readline
--without-zlib do not use Zlib
I did preference -> prefer and removed 'bsd'. I could name it
--with-libedit-first. Is that better?
> > Oh, one good thing is that the new configure 2.59 we are using throws an
> > error now for invalid user-supplied configure options, rather than
> > silently ignoring it like it used to.
>
> Really? I did "configure --with-bozo" and it didn't complain. It
> does barf on "--bozo", but the autoconf boys have been insistent for
> more than a decade that accepting --with-anything is a feature not
> a bug. So I think --with-some-long-name is more user-unfriendly than
> user-friendly.
Oh, I see, if you do --blah, it complains, but you are right,
--with-blah doesn't complain. Boohoo.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 04:03:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 03:56:10 | Re: generalizing the planner knobs |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-02 04:01:01 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2056: to_char no long takes time as input? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 03:43:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 04:03:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 03:43:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |