[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Multiple --with-foo possible?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Multiple --with-foo possible?
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:23:22 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

Hi Thomas,

* Thomas Schwinge wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 02:06:50PM CEST:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 12:54:39PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 
> >   --with-module=foo,bar,baz
> That would be an option, but I also need to pass additional information
> per module, à la ``--with-module=FILE,PRIORITY,SHARE,COMMAND LINE''.

Ah, ok, then the latter method may be better.

If your FILE,PRIORITY,SHARE,COMMAND LINE arguments were from some finite
set, you could transpose:

but I assume that is not the case.

> > or
> >   --with-foo-module --with-bar-module...
> The ``foo'', ``bar'' parts aren't preassigned, everything is possible.
> Also the number of modules isn't limited (in theory).

OK.  There are a couple of issues you have to deal with then:

First, configure --help output cannot list your allowed switches, but
you may be able to either directly divert text to the HELP_WITH
diversion, or use a bogus AC_ARG_WITH([--with-*-module]...) or so as a

Second, you have to actually get at the switches that were used.  I
think you can proceed similarly to the algorithm used by _AC_CACHE_DUMP
to enumerate all variables, then work from that; see the respective
macros in autoconf/lib/autoconf/general.m4.  Beware, this is tricky
code, and full of portability pitfalls, too, if you have to cater to
different shells.

Third, with Autoconf 2.62 you will need to use
AC_DISABLE_OPTION_CHECKING to avoid warnings about options not
directly recognized by the configure script.

Sorry I don't have a simpler solution.


reply via email to

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