On 20 November 2013 12:01, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20.11.2013 09:54, Herbert Duerr wrote: > >> On 20.11.2013 09:20, Andre Fischer wrote: >> >>> On 20.11.2013 08:33, Herbert Duerr wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Please use the --without-stlport configure switch. >>>> >>>> This option is the new default. Thanks to Jan for fixing configure.in. >>>> But you'd need to update to the newest trunk version to benefit from >>>> Jan's fix. >>>> >>>> >>> Is there any reason why we still need this option (be it default or >>> not)? >>> >> >> If there is a choice between step-wise evolution and a big-bang change >> I'd always prefer the step-wise evolution. >> > > I agree. But I would like steps that go from valid state to valid state. > From what I have heard I had the impression that the --without-stlport > option had only one valid value left and that using --with-stlport would > break the build. > > >> Is there any scenario where we would need that switch to turn on >>> support for stlport? >>> >> >> A developer reusing the latest recipes from our snapshots page would fail >> with the latest trunk if the --without-stlport option was no longer >> recognized. >> > > Would it not be better to update the recipes? > > I would assume that removing the configure option and adapting the build > recipes take just a couple of hours to do. Would it not be better to spend > this additional time and make the change of removing support for stlport > complete in one step? >
with my change to configure.in, you can choose to use --without-stlport or not it has he same effect, meaning developers do not need to change configure options. rgds jan I. > -Andre > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
