The other day, I did a test build of "everything", which involved
specifying 17 command-line arguments to configure.  This is probably the
reason why some fringe features are not tested very often: the list of
options is pretty overwhelming.

I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,
that asked you mainly yes/no questions about each feature you wanted, and
would run "configure" based on the answers it got.  This sort of thing
might help our situation, because instead of having to specify all the
options, users can just keep pressing Y all the time.  Of course it could
also be considered as a general improvement in user-friendliness.

Now I just realized that the latest PHP source code doesn't have this
thing anymore, so maybe they didn't like it?  What do you think?

As far as maintaining something like this goes, I think I have an idea
that would basically require zero effort, so at least that shouldn't be
too much of a concern.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:33:29 -0500 (EST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
A simpler way to configure the source code?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:


> Now I just realized that the latest PHP source code doesn't have this
> thing anymore, so maybe they didn't like it?  What do you think?


The linux kernel has something like this, maybe PHP was using it and 
maybe they dropped it when they went from the GPL to the more liberal 
license they're using now?


-- 
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org


Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:43:01 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The other day, I did a test build of "everything", which involved
> specifying 17 command-line arguments to configure.  This is probably the
> reason why some fringe features are not tested very often: the list of
> options is pretty overwhelming.

"--with-everything"?  Or more usefully, "--with-everything --without-perl"
if, say, you don't have Perl installed.

Or you could just reverse the defaults on all the options, but that'd
likely provoke a revolt.

> I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,

Perl's got one of those too, and I hate it ...

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:44:11 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code? 
> > I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,
>
> Perl's got one of those too, and I hate it ...

As do I.. I disliked the PHP one too.

Getting all the options setup initially is a bit daunting but once you have
your options, you can save it and cut/paste it in the future (which is what
I do, I have an entire doc dedicated to configure options and such of the
servers I configure)... Still, I'm not sure it's a huge issue as normal
users probably don't recompile very often...

I don't think switching to an interactive script would be good but giving
people the option will make some users happy I'm sure..

-Mitchell



Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:33:22 -0700
"Mitch Vincent" <mitch@doot.org>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> > I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,
> 
> Perl's got one of those too, and I hate it ...

Yes, it sucks.

Linux for instance, offers three (up to my knowledge) ways of handling setup.
A) A yes/no array of questios
B) A text mode, menuized approach
C) A graphic mode, with buttons which open menus.

I find B) especially friendly.

Regards,
Haroldo.

Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:41:29 -0300
Haroldo Stenger <hstenger@adinet.com.uy>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> The other day, I did a test build of "everything", which involved
> specifying 17 command-line arguments to configure.  This is probably the
> reason why some fringe features are not tested very often: the list of
> options is pretty overwhelming.
> 
> I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,
> that asked you mainly yes/no questions about each feature you wanted, and
> would run "configure" based on the answers it got.  This sort of thing
> might help our situation, because instead of having to specify all the
> options, users can just keep pressing Y all the time.  Of course it could
> also be considered as a general improvement in user-friendliness.
> 
> Now I just realized that the latest PHP source code doesn't have this
> thing anymore, so maybe they didn't like it?  What do you think?
> 
> As far as maintaining something like this goes, I think I have an idea
> that would basically require zero effort, so at least that shouldn't be
> too much of a concern.

I feel having the "fringe features" more tested is a great idea, and
will lead to a better PostgreSQL, and therefore happier users.  :)  A
friendly, and decently-easy-to-user interactive setup (Linux
"menuconfig" kernel style?) would be beneficial.

If it doesn't add signifcant overhead to maintenance, and is very
portable, it sounds to me like a good idea.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> 
> --
> Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:19:03 +1100
Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

> The other day, I did a test build of "everything", which involved
> specifying 17 command-line arguments to configure.  This is probably the
> reason why some fringe features are not tested very often: the list of
> options is pretty overwhelming.
> 
> I remembered that in the old days PHP had an interactive setup script,
> that asked you mainly yes/no questions about each feature you wanted, and
> would run "configure" based on the answers it got.  This sort of thing
> might help our situation, because instead of having to specify all the
> options, users can just keep pressing Y all the time.  Of course it could
> also be considered as a general improvement in user-friendliness.

I hated that (same for perl).

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

30 Jan 2002 10:50:05 -0500
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?
> Perl's got one of those too, and I hate it ...

You mean the endless number of questions when making Perl?

No, the Linux kernel has a nice menu based script. It will remember the last 
choice if you build more than one time and you only have to choose the areas 
you'd like to change.
It's very nice. There's a tk based frontend, I think, and there's extensive 
explanation for each point, so you almost always know why you have to choose 
on or off even for features you may not know too well.

-- 
Kaare Rasmussen            --Linux, spil,--        Tlf:        3816 2582
Kaki Data                tshirts, merchandize      Fax:        3816 2501
Howitzvej 75               ï¿½ben 14.00-18.00        Web:      www.suse.dk
2000 Frederiksberg        Lï¿½rdag 11.00-17.00       Email: kar@kakidata.dk

Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:46:09 +0100
Kaare Rasmussen <kar@kakidata.dk>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?
Kaare Rasmussen wrote:

>>Perl's got one of those too, and I hate it ...
>>
> 
> You mean the endless number of questions when making Perl?
> 
> No, the Linux kernel has a nice menu based script. It will remember the last 
> choice if you build more than one time and you only have to choose the areas 
> you'd like to change.


and there's a feature that hides everything except new options.  If 
you've built an older kernel, update, and there are new configuration 
options you can choose to just see those, and your past choices for 
older configuration parameters are kept.

Handy when someone adds configuration parameters for yet-another-IDE 
chipset that you don't really give care about.

-- 
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org


Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:05:18 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: A simpler way to configure the source code?