[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arguments to configure
From: |
Gavin Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Arguments to configure |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:14:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:10:49PM +0200, Sébastien Hinderer wrote:
> Many thanks for your openness. Well beyond the particular semantics we
> are trying to achieve, I think one reason for being more permissive
> about the syntax of arguments would be to help people in situation
> similar to mine maintaining backwards compatibility. Indeed, even in the
> cases where the arguments have been poorly named, I think it would help
> to be able to still use them and then deprecate them slowly, rather than
> being forced to change them brutally.
I don't think there is much to gain by being more permissive. I doubt
there are many configure scripts like yours that people want to rewrite
with autoconf. I'd suggest only allowing different kinds of arguments if
this would actually allow a better interface - otherwise, it's allowing
worse interfaces, which wouldn't ever be deprecated in practice.
- Arguemnts to configure, Sébastien Hinderer, 2018/10/02
- Re: Arguemnts to configure, Eric Blake, 2018/10/02
- Re: Arguemnts to configure, Vivien Kraus, 2018/10/02
- Re: Arguments to configure, Sébastien Hinderer, 2018/10/03
- Re: Arguments for OCaml build configuration, SF Markus Elfring, 2018/10/03
- Re: Arguments to configure, Vivien Kraus, 2018/10/03
- Re: Arguments to configure, Nick Bowler, 2018/10/03
- Re: Arguments to configure, Gavin Smith, 2018/10/04
- Re: Arguments to configure, Sébastien Hinderer, 2018/10/05
- Re: Arguments to configure,
Gavin Smith <=