[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: |
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:57:48 +0900 (JST) |
> Can someone remind me why putting everything on one command line
> (which doesn't work for all platforms anyway) is supposed to be better
> than editing the file userdefs.h?
I need to go back to my original intended comment that users ought to
*choose one or other* of the available methods to compile. If this is
misleading advice, I would like to be corrected. I am not saying
autoconf is better than editing userdefs.h, nor am I saying making
changes to userdefs.h is better than autoconf. I am saying, if you
want to go the userdefs.h route, then do everything by that method.
Conversely, if you want to use the configure script, then you'd be
better off not editing userdefs.h.
> But the "consequences" that one ought to be prepared for when changing a
> configuration file, are obviously that the selected configuration gets
> honored. Or what else?
Is this not happening? Is there something amiss with userdefs.h?
__Henry
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, Henry Nelson, 1999/11/22
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/22
- 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 <=
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, T.E.Dickey, 1999/11/23
- Re: lynx-dev (patch) userdefs.h & lynxcfg:, Henry Nelson, 1999/11/23
- 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