Re: enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical

Malcolm> I wouldn't get to hung up on the idea that referencing an Malcolm> external library must mean that --with has be used Malcolm> instead of --enable. What you are missing is that the semantics of --with-foo and --enable-bar are defined not by us, but by the Autoconf developers. At present, I don't think there is a substantial difference so we can make arbitrary choices, but I could see them doing something like assuming that --enable-bar takes a boolean or similar, which would hose any --enables that take library or multiple arguments. Malcolm> To answer Olivier's question, aliasing --with and Malcolm> --enable wouldn't be too difficult with a bit of macro Malcolm> magic I'll veto that unless it buys more than a little clarity in specifying arguments. We could just as easily simply not use the --enable forms at all. The other thing we could do is complete the set of "wrong way options" that are checked (eg, --with-mule will tell you to use --enable-mule), and extend them to check multiple options in one invocation. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.