On fre, 2010-03-05 at 08:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > On tor, 2010-03-04 at 17:53 +0000, Lou Picciano wrote:
> >> ./configure --no-docs or ./configure --with-htmldocs-only
>
> > 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.
>
> "End users" in that sense would almost certainly be working from a
> distribution tarball, if not a prepackaged distro. I don't think
> this discussion is about them; it's about what is most convenient
> for developers. As a developer, I don't find the current arrangement
> convenient in the least.
>
> What I'd be for is breaking the docs out as a separate top-level target,
> ie "make docs", "make install-docs". I don't much care for Lou's
> suggestion of tying it to a configure option because that imposes the
> significant additional cost of re-configuring when I change my mind.
> I do need to be *able* to build the docs, I just don't want it happening
> by surprise.
What this discussion is about is balancing between the needs of
developers and the (perceived) needs of end users. The problem is, as
is becoming apparent, that you can't really do that without making a
mess of the makefiles or breaking things for one side or the other.
By splitting out the doc building into a separate target, we will have
less users installing the documentation. Lou's suggestion is
essentially equivalent in that regard. I don't know if that's where we
want to go, but if so, it's a trivial and clean solution.
I don't know if "make world" is targeted at end users or developers or
the build farm. But the doc build is there anyway.
