Re: [PATCH] arch: new program

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:

> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The option syntax is awkward due to autoconf's pseudo-requirement
>> that such options look like --enable-REMAINDER_OF_NAME=VAL .
>> I'd welcome a better name.
>
> How about --enable-program-FOO and --disable-program-BAR, with the
> default being close to what it is now (i.e., enable everything but
> programs that won't build, and don't enable 'su' and 'arch')?  This
> use of --enable* and --disable* fits better into common practice than
> --enable-no- does.  It might be harder to arrange this on the autoconf
> side, admittedly,...

I could go either way on this.
I chose --enable-DO_OR_NOT_INSTALL=VAR so that one could add or
remove more than one program name with a single option, e.g.,

  --enable-no-install-program=df,hostname,kill,...
vs.
  --disable-program-df
  --disable-program-hostname
  --disable-program-kill
  ...

Another point is documenting the options in --help output:
With just two program-agnostic option names, the --help description
can work for other projects, too.  But I suppose I could work around
that.

But maybe it's not worth the option-name ugliness.