Re: enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical
Vin Shelton wrote:
On 10/3/05, Ben Wing <ben(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
>Vin Shelton wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
Believe it or not, I have a script that builds all XEmacsen from 19.16
to the present. I can actually build old 21.x tarballs using the same
script as a current tarball. Changing the options last time caused me
some grief, just as changing the options again will cause me some
grief. I assume that other people (many not on this list) will have
the same issue.
- Vin
i really think this is overblown. you're talking about backward
compatibility with something that was changed only a few betas ago. the
whole point of the beta process is not to be straitjacketed into
compatibility. if you really care about building *every* tarball,
you've already got a switch statement for various versions; adding
another statement and an associated s/-enable/-with/ is not hard.
keep in mind that reducing the randomness will be a *big* win for a
large number of XEmacs installers in the future. keeping it will make
life slightly easier for a dozen current users, at the expense of all
the others. (hell, if you really think it's going to be a burden, just
send me your scripts and i'll rewrite them for you.)
ben