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
> > 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.
That seems confusing because you would assume the default,
--without-libedit, would not use libedit, but it does.
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
I did preference -> prefer and removed 'bsd'. I could name it
--with-libedit-first. Is that better?
> > 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.
Oh, I see, if you do --blah, it complains, but you are right,
--with-blah doesn't complain. Boohoo.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073