Re: enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical
Malcolm Purvis wrote:
>>>>>"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
Ben> we have --enable-database={berkdb,...}, --enable-sound={nas,esd,...}
I wouldn't get to hung up on the idea that referencing an external library
must mean that --with has be used instead of --enable.
When I assigned the new flags I interpreted the definitions that Hrvoje posted
as followed:
- If the feature changed what I thought what the nature of XEmacs was then is
was given --enable, even if it also referred to external libraries.
- If the feature was more of an implementation detail of XEmacs' nature then
it was with --with.
eg,
- XEmacs with MULE or bignums is a different beast to one without either,
so both get --enable.
- XEmacs with widgets is different to XEmacs without and gets --enable, but
the choice of toolkit that implements that widgets doesn't changes XEmacs'
nature so it given --with.
That's not so say that my choices are perfect.
But:
[1] this distinction has little relevance to the "feature" vs
"package"
distinction.
[2] i can't follow the logic of many of the choices. why --enable-sound
but --with-png? what's the difference between sound and graphics? and
--with-x but --enable-database? Is database support really more
"fundamental" than X support? and --enable-quick-build certainly doesn't
belong. it really seems that there's no non-arbitrary way to divide up
the options.