On 03/19/2012 09:48 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> Meta-question: Why are you disabling option-checking in the first place? > > Missing a negation? Perhaps. That's the problem with double negatives. A better wording might be: Since option checking ignores unknown options by default, why are you explicitly trying to enable option checking? > >> It's contrary to GNU Coding Standards > > (JFTR: I don't see support for that statement at > <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/>, just an incidental > observation.) https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Configuration All configure scripts should accept all of the “detail” options and the variable settings, whether or not they make any difference to the particular package at hand. In particular, they should accept any option that starts with ‘--with-’ or ‘--enable-’. This is so users will be able to configure an entire GNU source tree at once with a single set of options. > >> (the ability to disable option >> checking is provided for non-GNU packages, but doesn't get as much >> testing because GNU packages shouldn't be using it in the first place). > > But I don't *want* to disable option-checking, > that's just what happens when I have AC_CONFIG_SUBDIR! > > If I could, I'd explicitly enable it; the point of this request! Again, sorry for my poor wording - the ability to enable the rejection of unknown options is what is contrary to GCS, and yet it is this explicit enabling of rejecting unknown options that you are trying to accomplish. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
