Tom's suggestion is much better than mine. I concur fully.
My issue, essentially, is that I want to get on with the business of actually testing these alphas... The 'Jade effect' has become an obstacle; time wasted. And, though I do want the documentation - ultimately - I'd like the option of make-ing a non Jade-dependent version of them. Don't give the proverbial 'two hoots' about Jade. Regards All, Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Peter Eisentraut" <pete...@gmx.net> Cc: "Lou Picciano" <loupicci...@comcast.net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com>, "Joe Conway" <m...@joeconway.com>, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Sent: Friday, March 5, 2010 8:09:54 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [BUGS] PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? Peter Eisentraut <pete...@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
