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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Date
Msg-id 29118.1267794594@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
List pgsql-bugs
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.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?
Next
From: Thomas Kellerer
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #5348: Postgres crashes with index on xpath_string