Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date: 2010-03-05 13:09:54
Message-ID: 29118.1267794594@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2010-03-04 at 17:53 +0000, Lou Picciano wrote:
>> ./configure --no-docs or ./configure --with-htmldocs-only

> 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.

"End users" in that sense would almost certainly be working from a
distribution tarball, if not a prepackaged distro. I don't think
this discussion is about them; it's about what is most convenient
for developers. As a developer, I don't find the current arrangement
convenient in the least.

What I'd be for is breaking the docs out as a separate top-level target,
ie "make docs", "make install-docs". I don't much care for Lou's
suggestion of tying it to a configure option because that imposes the
significant additional cost of re-configuring when I change my mind.
I do need to be *able* to build the docs, I just don't want it happening
by surprise.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lou Picciano 2010-03-05 14:17:11 Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-03-05 11:50:29 Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?