| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? |
| Date: | 2010-03-05 11:50:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1267789829.15738.4.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On tor, 2010-03-04 at 17:53 +0000, Lou Picciano wrote:
> While I'd agree a 'make all' should, uh... make _all_, and that make
> building based on lots of guessing is counterintuitive, an option to
> configure like:
>
> ./configure --no-docs or ./configure --with-htmldocs-only
>
> - with some of the obvious variants - might be very useful.
> Especially if docs are available elsewhere, and for those of us who
> may not have the inclination to retain/host all docs for all packages
> we build, or may prefer a specific format anyway, and who are really
> looking for the core software in any case...
But that would be a negative regression for end users, who we want to
have the docs available by default, so they can read them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-05 13:09:54 | Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-03-05 11:48:53 | Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? |