enable-foo vs. with-foo is illogical
ben at xemacs.org
Thu Oct 6 13:05:20 EDT 2005
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.)
>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
More information about the XEmacs-Beta