[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ACL and --without-all
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: ACL and --without-all |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:33 +0900 |
Paul Eggert writes:
> Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> > Also I believe that it should be --with/--without, not --enable/--disable.
>
> Other GNU packages use --enable/--disable, though;
> it's better to be consistent.
The --enable/--with distinction is unnecessary and hard to understand.
XEmacs simply makes --with-foo and --enable-foo equivalent by
automatically defining both the --with-foo option and the --enable-foo
option, automatically setting the corresponding with_foo variable when
the --enable-foo option is used, and ignoring the enable_foo variable.
When it makes sense to have a --enable-foo option and a --with-foo-lib
option, that's exactly what we do.
Works great, for developers and users. No backward-compatibility
complaints about this system in 10 years, either. Apparently it never
broke ./configure --recheck or anybody's scripts.