[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:

From: Klaus Weide
Subject: Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:35:11 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > Can someone remind me why putting everything on one command line
> > (which doesn't work for all platforms anyway) is supposed to be better
> > than editing the file userdefs.h?
> I need to go back to my original intended comment that users ought to
> *choose one or other* of the available methods to compile.  If this is
> misleading advice, I would like to be corrected.  I am not saying
> autoconf is better than editing userdefs.h, nor am I saying making
> changes to userdefs.h is better than autoconf.

Ok, got it.

> I am saying, if you
> want to go the userdefs.h route, then do everything by that method.
> Conversely, if you want to use the configure script, then you'd be
> better off not editing userdefs.h.

Everyone who compiles on/for Unix uses the configure script.  So all
those folks shouldn't edit userdefs.h?

Well maybe the "typical" user is better off doing either one or the
other.  (Which on Unix means "don't touch userdefs.h".)  I still don't
see why mixing should be actively discouraged.

> > But the "consequences" that one ought to be prepared for when changing a
> > configuration file, are obviously that the selected configuration gets
> > honored.  Or what else?
> Is this not happening?  Is there something amiss with userdefs.h?

Not that I know of, not in principle, this or that individual option
is broken but that's life...

But *you* used the ominous expression "better be prepared for the
consequences", so I am wondering what consequences you had in mind?
It sounds like something really bad's gonna happen...  That's why I
asked "Or what else?"


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]