Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> That seems easy to fix, but what should we do about the Tk part?
> Currently, --with-tcl implies Tk, except that it will be disabled if
> tkConfig.sh or X Windows could not be found. I propose that we instead
> make that a failure and advise the user to use the --without-x option to
> disable Tk. (That option already exists, but it is not evaluated.) That
> would imply that Tk = Tcl + X, and consequently X = Tk - Tcl, which would
> fail if we ever add another X program that is unrelated to Tcl/Tk. If you
> are concerned about that, maybe a --without-tk option would be better.
I think I prefer "--without-tk", since that says directly what you mean.
> The general assumption here is that the majority of users that want to use
> Tcl is also equipped with Tk and X, so that only a few users would have to
> specifically disable Tk.
That seems a safe assumption, but there does need to be some way to
disable the tk support.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2000-09-22 17:03:16|
|Subject: Re: Bug in RI|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-09-22 16:26:45|
|Subject: Re: [patch,rfc] binary operators on integers |