Hello,
I've just commited the patch to AC_ARG_WITH documentation, in the
exact form as submitted by Gregorio Guidi in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2005-03/msg00116.html
Stepan
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 21:14, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > +The following example shows how to use the @code{AC_ARG_WITH} macro in
> > +a very common situation. You want to let the user decide whether to
> > enable
>
> Remove "very".
> Use English spacing after sentences; i.e., two spaces after the p
Thanks for that documentation proposal. A few comments (only the last
one is major):
Gregorio Guidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +The following example shows how to use the @code{AC_ARG_WITH} macro in
> +a very common situation. You want to let the user decide whether to enable
Remove "very".
On Friday 18 February 2005 15:56, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> I have a few comments. Mostly aesthetics, but also fixing some bugs in
> your examples (underquoted AS_HELP_STRING, for example):
>
> ...
Thanks for your help, Stepan.
Here's the new patch, after I applied your suggestions:
Index: doc/autoco
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > actually, I believe that both my proposals will get actually implemented.
> > But the AS_IF solution is already checked in to the autoconf CVS.
>
> If there will be another solution, I would prefer to avoid AS_IF.
we cann
On Wednesday 16 February 2005 16:31, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:05:12PM +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > Note: as you can see, the patch assumes there will be a solution for the
> > "AC_REQUIRE in shell conditional" issue.
>
> actually, I believe that both my proposals will get
On Saturday 05 February 2005 01:01, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> So I think we should:
>
> for main problem: encourage the use of AC_ARG_WITH and AC_ARG_ENABLE.
>
> for child problem: provide a standard interpretation of those macros
> (either through a macro that standardizes the use of
> AC_ARG_WITH/A
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:01:03AM +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> I think the 'standard' way to use AC_ARG_WITH (from the packager's point of
> view) in a case such as the acl one, should be like this:
> If the user gave --without-acl, disable acl support
this is usual practice, there is not
Gregorio Guidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To avoid this, it should be possible to build software x in a way that does
> not depend on the building host, and this is only possible if x supports
> AC_ARG_WITH() or AC_ARG_ENABLE() for every optional feature it has
> (so that I can add --without-
On Friday 04 February 2005 21:17, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The samba developers interpreted --with-acl-support as a firm decision,
> > so the configure script aborts if the acl prerequisities are not
> > available.
> >
> > But the intention of the distributi
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The samba developers interpreted --with-acl-support as a firm decision,
> so the configure script aborts if the acl prerequisities are not available.
>
> But the intention of the distribution builders was rather like ``I'd like
> to have acl support, if p
Hi,
I'd also like to se a clear resolution about Georgio's question.
I think I understand what he is asking for, thus I hope I won't do
any harm if I rephrase the question.
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:43:54PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Dan Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 20
On Friday 04 February 2005 08:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Dan Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >> Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> > When you say "features", do you mean "user-visible features"? That is
> >> > the subject tof AC_ARG_ENABLE, and you can contr
Dan Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > When you say "features", do you mean "user-visible features"? That is
>> > the subject tof AC_ARG_ENABLE, and you can control them with the
>> > appropriate --with* options when you inv
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Gregorio Guidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>it is very important when creating a package to know in advance what
> >>features will be enabled in the software at the end of the process,
> >>without knowing the details of the ho
Paul Eggert wrote:
Gregorio Guidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
it is very important when creating a package to know in advance what
features will be enabled in the software at the end of the process,
without knowing the details of the host where the package is
building.
When you say "feature
Gregorio Guidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you can imagine, a very common (if not the most common) use case for code
> in configure.in/configure.ac is the following: run a check, see the result,
> and decide if a specific feature of the software should be enabled or
> disabled.
I think th
17 matches
Mail list logo
