On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Oh. I just didn't see any reason why a sysadmin would particularly care > > unless they were about to recompile it. > I agree with Richard Braakman: you have two sort of compile > options. Those who were necessary to build but have no visible influence > for the user of a binary package (--include=/foo/bar) and those who do > have an influence and are of interest to all users (not only the sysadmin, > BTW), like -DCRLF in netatalk.
Ah, yes, I see. Probably some different wording would be better (user visible like Richard suggests maybe), but this would be very nice. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
