Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> writes:
> It is a feature, not a bug. From the documentation, node "Choosing
> Package Options":
>
> `configure' scripts do not complain about `--enable-FEATURE' options
> that they do not support. This behavior permits configuring a source
> tree containing multiple packages with a top-level `configure' script
> when the packages support different options, without spurious error
> messages about options that some of the packages support. An
> unfortunate side effect is that option spelling errors are not
> diagnosed. No better approach to this problem has been suggested so
> far.
Would it be practical to require top-level `configure.ac's to
reference lower-level configure scripts, so that we could
recursively enumerate the possible --enable options?
--
"Q: How does a hacker fix a function which
doesn't work for all of the elements in its domain?
A: He changes the domain."
--Thorfinn
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
