[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CFLAGS/LDFLAGS vs. --with

From: Monty Taylor
Subject: Re: CFLAGS/LDFLAGS vs. --with
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:04:39 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090608)

Russ Allbery wrote:
> Braden McDaniel <address@hidden> writes:
>> If all your --with argument would be doing is dumbly appending
>> "/include" and "/lib" for -I and -L flags, I don't see the point.
> I provide --with-* options for all optional libraries because sometimes
> they do something else and sometimes they don't, and this way I provide a
> consistent API to everyone building the package.  Actually, I provide
> three options: --with-foo that sets the prefix, --with-foo-include that
> sets the -I option only, and --with-foo-lib that sets the -L option only.
> --with-foo does some work to figure out lib vs. lib32 vs. lib64, and for
> some libraries it does other things instead.  (For Kerberos, for instance,
> the --with-foo path is used to find the right krb5-config script to run.)

I also provide --with-* options for all optional libs for the same
reason. I've taken to using the excellent AC_LIB_HAVE_LINKFLAGS that
gettext provides in their m4 files so that I don't have to rewrite the
logic every single time.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]