Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patchespgsql-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

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 04:03:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 03:43:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 04:03:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 03:56:10
Subject: Re: generalizing the planner knobs

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-02 04:01:01
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2056: to_char no long takes time as input?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 03:43:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group