Re: enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical
Ben Wing <ben(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>The logic is supposed to be the following:
>
>--with-foo:
> Require (or disable with --require) the use of external software
> that XEmacs can link with and/or interface to. Hypothetical
> examples: --with-berkeley-db, --with-gnome, --with-ssl, --with-tiff
>
>These are typically turned off to reduce the number of dependencies of
>the resulting XEmacs, or sometimes to suppress autodetection of those
>libraries when such autodetection is buggy.
>
>
>
we have --enable-database={berkdb,...}, --enable-sound={nas,esd,...}
They should have been "--with" according to Autoconf logic. That's
why I said what logic is "supposed to be" rather than "is".
>--enable-foo:
> Gives user the choice whether to include "optional compile-time
> features" into his XEmacs. Hypothetical examples: --enable-md5,
> --enable-optimization, --enable-bignum, --enable-error-checking,
> --enable-mule
>
>
bignum and tiff both require external libraries; so why is one
--enable and one --with in your examples?
Sorry, I keep forgetting that bignum requires an external library.
How about --with-toolbars but --enable-menubars?
Both sound like --enable material to me since they require external
libraries.