Re: Updating the GCS on ./configure MACHINE

[Pavel Roskin]

On 7 Nov 2002, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Pavel> I don't like the idea that the configure script `must' or
> Pavel> `should' support --target.  It's a standard, not a description
> Pavel> of the configure files generated by the current version of
> Pavel> Autoconf.
> 
> Pavel> I don't see any reason to require --target support for the
> Pavel> programs which don't need it.
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing context.  Traditionally we talked about the
> "configure API": flags and such that any configure script, no matter
> how generated, were required to recognize.  Whether the script does
> anything with the flag is up to it.

Maybe it's me who is missing context.  But then "should also support the 
options" should become "should also accept the options".  It's interesting 
that there is another part in the current GCS (quoting from Autoconf CVS):

  Programs for which cross-operation is not meaningful need not accept the
  @samp{--target} option, because configuring an entire operating system 
  for cross-operation is not a meaningful operation.

I think that there is an important difference between "accepting" an
option (with may be needed if the top-level configure actually uses
--target, unlike some subpackages) and supporting it (i.e. doing something 
meaningful with it).

English is not my native language, so the choice of words can be
different, but it's important that we draw a distinction.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin