Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> writes:
> > --with-preference-bsd-libedit prefer libedit over readline
> Can't it just be --with-libedit? That seems awfully verbose,
> particularly seeing that configure doesn't handle switch abbreviation.
The problem is that we need a clear way to say we don't want any line
editing. Right now we do it with --without-readline. Also, we already
test for libedit if we don't find readline. Would we stop doing that?
And if we do that, do we tell them they have to say --without-readline
too? And if we don't, how do we handle it? I am just confused how to
clean this up without making thing worse. I am looking for ideas.
I guess my point is do we enable looking for readline and libedit by
default, and if we do how do we specify with to test for first, and how
do we specify we want no line editing functionaliy?
> The patch looks OK offhand, though I didn't try to test it.
I tested it and it does look for libedit first when defined, and matches
the patch posted by the AIX user, except it is a configure option.
Oh, one good thing is that the new configure 2.59 we are using throws an
error now for invalid user-supplied configure options, rather than
silently ignoring it like it used to.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
firstname.lastname@example.org | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster