On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:16:26PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 September 2018 at 17:21, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I still find it odd > > that we aren't precisely mirroring the (nice!) semantics that autoconf users > > have come to rely on > > I think that's more the result of (a) most people don't know the > details of the autoconf semantics and (b) configure works well-enough > that nobody spends more time messing with it than they need to. I think > as an aspiration "behave like an autoconf configure script" is > probably a sensible goal.
autoconf is so complex that we'll never have behavioural parity with it, unless we actually rewrite QEMU to use autoconf, but I'm not really going to advocate that. If there are easy changes we can do to make it look a little more like autoconf, that's fine, but I wouldn't spend any non-trivial amount of time on it as there's better uses of our time. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
