Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Priit Laes <plaes(at)plaes(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.
Date: 2010-02-11 03:55:43
Message-ID: 4B737FBF.7040005@timbira.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escreveu:
> I'm still quite dubious about the usefulness, but I could live with this
> if someone explains to me how the printout is going to stay within 24x80
> given the inevitable growth in number of configure options ...
>
AFAICS, we have > 40 configure options. If we want this to fit in 24 rows (i)
we should choose popular options or (ii) print only features/packages that
have a non-default option/value. Both ideas aren't ideal for machine-readable
format (as someone mentioned pgbuildfarm) because the summary is partial i.e.
the software needs to know beforehand what are the default configure options.
Of course, parsing the configure output and greping the interested options is
a boring task but at least it is all there; but it's not a summary. :(

--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Ar18 2010-02-11 04:04:29 Re: Confusion over Python drivers {license}
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-11 03:17:14 Re: Confusion over Python drivers {license}