On 01/13/2016 06:59 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > I'm happy to add in some form of getopt_long, which I generally prefer > for self-documentation purposes. Do we need to do something special > the way PostgreSQL does? I presume simply mandating GNU wouldn't > work.
If your hoping to have something that we could add for a 2.2.x then there I wouldn't want to introduce or change any dependencies. In terms of requiring GNU getopt for 2.3.x I guess it depends on how common that is on other platforms:the bsd's, solaris and AIX. I don't think slon uses command line options on win32 (but I could be wrong). I do expect slony to build on those platforms without requiring a lot more effort than what would be required to build PG. My take is adding additional command line options is fine for a dot release as long as we don't change the names of any existing options. If anyone disagrees they should speak up. > >> If you're keen on patching in long-ish option names for everything, >> I don't see a big reason to struggle against that. > > I'd be delighted to improve the clarity here. > > Cheers, > David. > _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list Slony1-general@lists.slony.info http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
