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.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
