On 2/4/15 8:20 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2015 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or maybe use a make variable, like NO_DOC. I think that's preferable to
>>> adding more targets.
>> Unless we can come up with a new target name that obviously means
>> "world minus docs", the make-variable idea may be the best.
> I'm not terribly keen on this. If you don't like "binworld", how about
> "world-no-docs"?
I think using options of some kind instead of top-level targets is
preferable.
If we add world-no-docs, should we also add install-world-no-docs,
installdirs-world-no-docs, uninstall-world-no-docs, check-work-no-docs,
installcheck-world-no-docs, clean-no-docs, distclean-no-docs, etc.?
This would get out of hand.
Also, it's harder to port things like that to other build systems,
including the secondary ones we already have.
We already have configure options to decide that we don't want to deal
with part of the tree. (There is no make world-no-python.) We used to
have support in configure to not build part of the docs. We could
resurrect that if that's what people want. I'd actually prefer that
even over a make variable.
