Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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? Well, we could rename --without-readline to --without-editing, but I think this would just break people's existing expectations without adding much. I don't see a problem with documenting --with-libedit prefer libedit over libreadline and leaving the rest alone. > 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. Really? I did "configure --with-bozo" and it didn't complain. It does barf on "--bozo", but the autoconf boys have been insistent for more than a decade that accepting --with-anything is a feature not a bug. So I think --with-some-long-name is more user-unfriendly than user-friendly. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org