[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch
From: |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:48:16 +0100 |
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:43:41AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> In the interests of forward compatibility, it probably shouldn't *error*
> out...
>
> If in 1.6.2 we add a new option, we necessarily want 1.6 to suddenly
> stop working because people have included the new one.
>
> We know that Autoconf doesn't error when unknown configure arguments are
> given, what does Automake do if you give AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE an unknown
> option? (afaict it doesn't)
Automake diagnoses unknown options as errors. It checks this at
automake-time, not autoconf-time.
I don't think they could be warnings. The idea is that when a
maintainer selected an option, he has a reason for doing so. So we
should not ignore it. Just see options as features: new features
require new versions. It's not unlike `ls --new-option' either.
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, (continued)
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Scott James Remnant, 2004/02/02
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/02
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Tom Tromey, 2004/02/02
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/03
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Scott James Remnant, 2004/02/03
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/03
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/02
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/02
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/02/02
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Scott James Remnant, 2004/02/03
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V . Vaughan, 2004/02/03