Den 2011-02-07 11:12 skrev Ralf Corsepius: > On 02/07/2011 10:02 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Den 2011-02-07 09:14 skrev Ralf Corsepius: >>> Provided how HW has developed since the discussions from 10 years >>> ago, you cited about, I am actually leaning towards proposing the >>> converse of your proposal: Autoconf toconsider to abandoning >>> config.cache. >> No, it still needs to be optional. > I don't have anything against this. However, it's simply that the > overwhelming majority of current packages hasn't been developed > with config.caches in mind. And of those which really use it > (complex packages such as GCC or GDB) occasionally to get things > wrong. So, IMO, the advantage you believe to see on cygwin or mingw > is of limited benefit. What do you mean by "believe to see" and "of limited benefit"? You are apparently not getting it, or you are downplaying my use case deliberately. The advantage I see for the packages I care about and regularly work on is very real: the experience moves from the "pain in the ass" category to "bearable" when I enable the cache. I'm not talking about one-time builds on Cygwin, I talking about doing development there. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
