Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: In any case please be consistent about the capitalization ... OK, updated text: --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-libedit-preferred prefer Libedit over Libreadline --without-readline do not use Libreadline/Libedit line editing

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: In any case please be consistent about the capitalization ... OK, updated text: --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-libedit-preferred prefer Libedit over Libreadline --without-readline do not use

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: They are called Readline and Libedit. I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. The functionality may be called command-line editing but I don't see how that relates to what actually appears in the patch. Why is it Readline? PostgreSQL was

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: They are called Readline and Libedit. I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. The functionality may be called command-line editing but I don't see how that relates to what actually appears in the patch. When you

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Michael Paesold
Bruce Momjian wrote: I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. Why is it Readline? The GNU Readline Library is usually referred to as Readline, not libreadline. The offical name for libedit is really Libedit. See e.g.: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libedit/

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Michael Paesold wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. Why is it Readline? The GNU Readline Library is usually referred to as Readline, not libreadline. The offical name for libedit is really Libedit. See e.g.:

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Patch applied. --- Bruce Momjian wrote: Michael Paesold wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: I wanted to distinguish libreadline from readline-functionality. Why is it Readline? The GNU Readline Library is usually

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: I trimmed it down to: --with-bonjour build with Bonjour support --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-prefer-libedit prefer libedit over readline --without-readline do not use Readline --without-zlib do not use Zlib

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm concerned that this still gives nondeterministic behavior. There's no way to say, I want readline, period or I want libedit, period. I'd prefer simple --with-readline and --with-libedit, giving one turns off the other, giving both is an

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: I trimmed it down to: --with-prefer-libedit prefer libedit over readline OK, I can live with that. I think it's ugly. Can't we just say --prefer-libedit ? If must be a --with-foo flag,

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Chris Browne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm concerned that this still gives nondeterministic behavior. There's no way to say, I want readline, period or I want libedit, period. I'd prefer simple --with-readline and --with-libedit, giving one turns off

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To my mind, giving BIG weight to the opinions of the relatively small set of individuals that manage PostgreSQL packages for the popular distributions of Linux and *BSD seems fairly appropriate. The packagers are bright enough to adapt to whatever we do

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: The basic problem is that with two deterministic flags the default values for those flags are unclear. That's a really good point ... the only explainable default would be that both are --without, which is a crummy default. I think the way that

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I trimmed it down to: --with-prefer-libedit prefer libedit over readline I think it's ugly. Can't we just say --prefer-libedit ? If must be a --with-foo flag, maybe --with-libedit-preferred or --with-libedit-first would be better. OK, changed:

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: The basic problem is that with two deterministic flags the default values for those flags are unclear. That's a really good point ... the only explainable default would be that both are --without, which is a crummy default. I

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: --with-libedit-preferred prefer libedit over readline --without-readline do not use Readline Possibly --without-readline do not use readline or libedit In any case please be consistent about the

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
OK, updated text: --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-libedit-preferred prefer Libedit over Libreadline --without-readline do not use Libreadline/Libedit line editing --without-zlib do not use Zlib This all seems kind of extra... Why not just:

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: OK, updated text: --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-libedit-preferred prefer Libedit over Libreadline --without-readline do not use Libreadline/Libedit line editing --without-zlib do not use Zlib This all seems

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:12 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: OK, updated text: --with-openssl build with OpenSSL support --with-libedit-preferred prefer Libedit over Libreadline --without-readline do not use Libreadline/Libedit line

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: --with-preference-bsd-libeditprefer libedit over readline Can't it just be --with-libedit? That seems awfully verbose, particularly seeing that configure doesn't handle switch abbreviation. The patch looks OK offhand, though I didn't try

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: --with-preference-bsd-libeditprefer 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

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: 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

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-12-01 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes: I trimmed it down to: --with-prefer-libedit prefer libedit over readline OK, I can live with that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0,

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:07:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote: PS: I'd prefer if readline was only linked where it is needed, namely in psql. The problem as stated is that people don't want to maintain lists of

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:50:48PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Nice analysis, but we can't hack configure like that. It has to be able to be fully generated from its sources. I think the other source file you would need to look at is config/programs.m4. (Not sure

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: Why don't we have a libedit configure flag? Well, I can code up a configure flag, but that doesn't mean that the thing will compile at the end. :) -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-22 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD
With AIX 5, the easiest way to get a shared object is to pass -bexpall to the linker. This results in all symbols being exported. Yes, that is another reason not to use this broken switch. And last time I checked (AIX 4.3.3), -bexpall did not export all needed symbols (e.g. globals) from the

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-22 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:07:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote: PS: I'd prefer if readline was only linked where it is needed, namely in psql. The problem as stated is that people don't want to maintain lists of libraries as needed by each program, so we link all of them. Since it

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-22 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:50:48PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Nice analysis, but we can't hack configure like that. It has to be able to be fully generated from its sources. I think the other source file you would need to look at is config/programs.m4. (Not sure about quoting $ac_popdir

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Nice analysis, but we can't hack configure like that. It has to be able to be fully generated from its sources. I think the other source file you would need to look at is config/programs.m4. (Not sure about quoting $ac_popdir - why only that one?) Also, I suspect we'd want to enable the

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

2005-11-21 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, I suspect we'd want to enable the libedit preference with a switch rather than just force it, if we want to go this way. Quite. My recollection is that there are other platforms on which readline works and libedit is broken. (Readline used to