Re: [Bug-apl] Bug: ./configure --without-libapl still wants to compile library

[Alexey Veretennikov]

Hi,

No problems, I'm using it now, I just wanted to point out the
inconsistency or potential bug. It costed me couple of hours however of
the compilation time on my small machine.

Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Alexey,
>
> see below.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
> On 12/26/2016 11:53 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> I assume --without-libapl should be the same as --with-libapl=no, as it
> logically follows.
>
> Correct. --without-libapl is equivalent to --with-libapl=no. That is not a 
> matter of logic, but a
> convention in autoconf. And this convention is in fact followed for the 
> --with-libapl option.
>
> However, the real question is if --with-libapl=no shall have the opposite 
> effect of --with-libapl=yes
> or not. If =yes and =no were valid arguments for --with-libapl, then that 
> would make sense. But
> --with-libapl has no arguments and therefore =yes and =no are both ignored 
> and lead to the
> same effect, namely libapl being built instead of apl.
>
> So in your opinion two different invalid arguments shall have different 
> effects, while IMHO is is more
> consistent if two different invalid arguments have the same effect.
>
>  I guess there is a bug either in the build system or in
> autoconf/automake tools. I've never written scripts for them so I can't
> judge; but all my previous experience building software with ./configure
> script says what --without-PACKAGE actually means build _without_
> mentioned package.
>
> To me it is a sensitive subject, since because of this the build process
> on my ARM HPC is more than 24 hours already.
>
> As I said, simply do not mention --with-libapl or --without-libapl at all in 
> your ./configure 
> arguments and everything will be fine. I really cannot see the point of using 
> --without-libapl if
> that is the default anyhow.
>
>  
>
> Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  Hi Alexey,
>
> first of all, --without-libapl is not a valid ./configure option, and there 
> is no mentioning
> of --without-libapl in README-2-configure.
>
> Not building libapl is the default, so instead of saying --without-libapl you 
> should simply not say
> --with-libapl.
>
> The --without-PACKAGE description in configure --help comes from the standard 
> autoconf help
> and relates to packages being used and not to packages being produced (like 
> libapl).
>
> As a matter of fact, according to ./configure --help, --without-libapl is the 
> same as --with-libapl=no.
> Now, --with-libapl does not have (resp. ignores) any arguments, which makes 
> --with-libapl=no
> the same as --with-libapl, which is what you see.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
> On 12/26/2016 09:09 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> It seems what even if I set
>
> ./configure --without-libapl
>
> the configure scripts still reports
>
> checking if we want to build libapl.so... yes
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Br,
/Alexey