Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  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?