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

Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date: 2010-03-05 20:53:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.  I think that is a much better solution.


In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-03-05 20:56:28
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-03-05 14:21:53
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

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