enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical

[Ben Wing]

Vin Shelton wrote:

>On 10/6/05, Ben Wing <ben at xemacs.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>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,
>
>I realize my scripts can be fixed with some amount of programming.  I
>am not interested in your help, thank you.
>
>I still think that aliasing '--with-foo' to '--enable-foo' makes the most sense.
>  
>
sure, if someone who understands autoconf will go do it.  i'm just 
concerned that no one will actually do it, and since you don't want me 
to just s/enable/with/ in configure.ac, we'll get stuck with the current 
situation indefinitely.