Hi, I assume --without-libapl should be the same as --with-libapl=no, as it logically follows.
I guess there is a bug either in the build system or in autoconf/automake tools. I've never written scripts for them so I can't judge; but all my previous experience building software with ./configure script says what --without-PACKAGE actually means build _without_ mentioned package. To me it is a sensitive subject, since because of this the build process on my ARM HPC is more than 24 hours already. Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> writes: > Hi Alexey, > > first of all, --without-libapl is not a valid ./configure option, and there > is no mentioning > of --without-libapl in README-2-configure. > > Not building libapl is the default, so instead of saying --without-libapl you > should simply not say > --with-libapl. > > The --without-PACKAGE description in configure --help comes from the standard > autoconf help > and relates to packages being used and not to packages being produced (like > libapl). > > As a matter of fact, according to ./configure --help, --without-libapl is the > same as --with-libapl=no. > Now, --with-libapl does not have (resp. ignores) any arguments, which makes > --with-libapl=no > the same as --with-libapl, which is what you see. > > /// Jürgen > > On 12/26/2016 09:09 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems what even if I set > > ./configure --without-libapl > > the configure scripts still reports > > checking if we want to build libapl.so... yes > > > -- Br, /Alexey
