>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> 1. we add diversions which makes it possible to specify some
Akim> processing of the options, and we don't support --target etc. by
Akim> default.
Akim> 2. when AC_CAN_TARGET is called, a variable is set very high in
Akim> configure which tells the options handling machinery that
Akim> --target is enabled.
Tom> And would it be an error if --target is given to a configure
Tom> script which doesn't claim to support it? Or would --target just
Tom> not appear in --help output?
Tom> If the former, then I'm against it. Consider making a
Tom> Cygnus-style tree. What you're saying is that anybody who does
Tom> this (not just Cygnus, the gcc and gdb net repositories do this
Tom> too) has to maintain local modifications to the configure.in for
Tom> each package they import. This is lame.
The role I'm trying to play is that of a psy who helps someone to
spell out what he wants to say. And indeed, I have no competence at
all in cross compilation, and in its real life use. So yes, I'm
proposing scheme so that you criticize them :)
The patch I submitted does what you don't it to do. This is because I
thought that never ever there would be a deep configuration using
--target, and with package that don't support it inside. I did so,
because it makes no sense to me.
But if it does make sense, if it does happen that people have a single
deep configuration tree and they do want to --target it even though it
makes no sense for some sub packages, then I'll
s/AC_MSG_ERROR/AC_MSG_WARNING/ my patch.
Still, for my own education, I would like to be taught why it would
make sense.
Akim
