On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:10:17AM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:19:56AM +0100, Gary wrote:
> > are all the capabilities included using "--enable-WHATEVER"? if so, why > > do some final results start with USE, some with HAVE, and others nothing > > special at all? If not, how do I enable/disable them? > > The USE_* options are typically controlled via --enable-* or --with-* Err. In the sense I can use whichever form I like, or in the sense that one or other will work, depending on which option I am trying to include? > options to configure. The HAVE_* are system aspects that the configure > script automatically detects are are not typically user configurable. > The items without a prefix are primarily items which the user *may* need > to override (most of these are old, but would probably be better labeled > with a USE_ prefix). Okay, thanks for that info. Sorry for asking, but I couldn't find this info anywhere. Maybe my google-fu is a bit off at the moment. So --enable-LOCALES_HACK for example, would result in +LOCALES_HACK in the binary, I guess. > > Additionally, is it possible to not build/install the documentation > > somehow? Trying to do that here gives me an error and then make stops > > *sigh* > > I am not sure, but you may be able to remove the "doc" item from the > SUBDIRS variable in the Makefile. Will try. Thanks. > Typically it's better to just install the docbook packages so you can build the docs. Actually I have (even though 'grep -iIr docbook *' in the src directory returns no results). It doesn't help. > > make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/mutt/doc' > > ##test -f manual.html || make manual.html || cp ./manual*.html ./ > > cp ./manual*.html ./ > > cp: cannot stat `./manual*.html': No such file or directory > > make[2]: *** [try-html] Error 1 > > make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/mutt/doc' > > make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/mutt' > > make: *** [install] Error 2 > > > > Why would anyone want to copy ./<some file> to the same place anyway? > > Any why on earth would they expect that to succeed? > > The build system does not assume that you are building in the same > directory where the sources reside. Okay. > In the example you noted above, they are the same directory so it looks > odd, but it is not in error. Well, make appears to disgree with you on that. It just stops after the errors noted above and I don't get a binary or whatever documentation it's trying to build. Admittedly, I have an old version, so it might not be a current problem (it's also the Cygwin version, so it might not even really be *your* problem). Okay, so I tried this removing the doc entry from SUBDIR in the Makefile and that seems to work fine. Thanks for your help. I'll see to getting the configure options sorted out correctly now.
