[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:
From: |
Henry Nelson |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg: |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:40:05 +0900 (JST) |
> 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.
Well, I certainly trust your judgment more than my own on such issues,
so I'll be quiet. Also, from Tom's silence I must assume I am incorrect.
> But *you* used the ominous expression "better be prepared for the
> consequences", so I am wondering what consequences you had in mind?
The consequences that I *thought* might occur by defining something manually
in userdefs.h that had been designed to be defined by the configure script.
It *seemed* to me that "going behind autoconf's back," i.e., attempting to
forcibly override, could quite possibly break the script or its product.
__Henry
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, Larry W. Virden, 1999/11/22
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/22
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/22
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, Henry Nelson, 1999/11/22
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/23
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:,
Henry Nelson <=
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, Henry Nelson, 1999/11/23
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/23