Hi, No problems, I'm using it now, I just wanted to point out the inconsistency or potential bug. It costed me couple of hours however of the compilation time on my small machine.
Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> writes: > Hi Alexey, > > see below. > > /// Jürgen > > On 12/26/2016 11:53 PM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote: > > Hi, > > I assume --without-libapl should be the same as --with-libapl=no, as it > logically follows. > > Correct. --without-libapl is equivalent to --with-libapl=no. That is not a > matter of logic, but a > convention in autoconf. And this convention is in fact followed for the > --with-libapl option. > > However, the real question is if --with-libapl=no shall have the opposite > effect of --with-libapl=yes > or not. If =yes and =no were valid arguments for --with-libapl, then that > would make sense. But > --with-libapl has no arguments and therefore =yes and =no are both ignored > and lead to the > same effect, namely libapl being built instead of apl. > > So in your opinion two different invalid arguments shall have different > effects, while IMHO is is more > consistent if two different invalid arguments have the same effect. > > 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. > > As I said, simply do not mention --with-libapl or --without-libapl at all in > your ./configure > arguments and everything will be fine. I really cannot see the point of using > --without-libapl if > that is the default anyhow. > > > > 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
