Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date
Msg-id 1267789829.15738.4.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Lou Picciano <loupicciano@comcast.net>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On tor, 2010-03-04 at 17:53 +0000, Lou Picciano wrote:
> While I'd agree a 'make all' should, uh...  make _all_, and that make
> building based on lots of guessing is counterintuitive,  an option to
> configure like:
>
> ./configure --no-docs   or ./configure --with-htmldocs-only
>
> - with some of the obvious variants - might be very useful.
>  Especially if docs are available elsewhere, and for those of us who
> may not have the inclination to retain/host all docs for all packages
> we build, or may prefer a specific format anyway, and who are really
> looking for the core software in any case...

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.

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?