Re: enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical
Vin Shelton wrote:
On 9/28/05, Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:52:31AM -0500, Ben Wing wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a little confused. What is the objection to just using `with-foo'
>>always, and never using `enable-foo' at all, no aliasing provided?
>>
>>
>1- I'd find annoying to have to change my configure-calling scripts
> _again_ (but I'll survive)
>
>2- I really, really don't want us to have to go through that crap
> again in 6-12 months. Always with-foo was the situation before
> whoever changed it. So it must have not been the right thing for
> some (unfathomable to me) reason.
>
> OG.
>
>
>
>
While I agree with Ben that the current situation is confusing, I
don't think changing all of the --enables to --withs buys us very
much. It simplifies the situation at the expense of backwards
compatibility.
backwards compatibility with what? we just redid all the options.
I think the autoconf distinction is, at best, confusing and in the
case of XEmacs, the distinctions don't make much sense. We are
clearly beyond the pale as far as number and types of options with
respect to autoconf.
right, that's exactly the reason to not make the distinctions.
We also have some history to consider: I, too, like Olivier, would
not
want to change my scripts again.
I really don't understand this. Changing your scripts is trivial:
perl -pi -e 's/-enable/-with/g;'
that's it.