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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Lou PiccianoDate: 2010-03-05 14:17:11
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-03-05 11:50:29
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group