[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default}
From: |
Russ Allbery |
Subject: |
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default} |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:45:22 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter, sparc-sun-solaris2.6) |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
> The GNU coding standards say this:
> You will note that the categories `--with-' and `--enable-' are
> narrow: they *do not* provide a place for any sort of option you might
> think of. That is deliberate. We want to limit the possible
> configuration options in GNU software. We do not want GNU programs to
> have idiosyncratic configuration options.
> So the recommended practice is to not do what you're doing. :-)
This seems like obviously bad advice to me. How is one expected to handle
something like specification of a default paper size unless there's a user
switch somewhere?
Surely the GNU coding standards aren't arguing that editing a cryptic
configuration file is an improvement over a configure switch?
> If you really want to do it anyway, despite the recommendation, I
> suggest using environment variables.
Wow, this seems like an even worse idea. Now the user doesn't see any
mention of the option when they run ./configure --help and you have to
explain how to set environment variables.
--
Russ Allbery (address@hidden) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default}, Akim Demaille, 2002/09/03