Bruce Momjian <> 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

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to