Junio, good day. Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:12:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-git@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:36:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> Thanks for sanity checking. That means that the absense of > >> tcltk would make it impossible to munge the scripts to point at > >> the wish binary, so makes the NO_TCLTK stuff easier to swallow. > > > > Sorry, did not get the point. The TCLTK is initialized to the 'wish' > > by 'TCLTK ?= wish', so TCLTK will always be here and initialized > > to the wish by-default. > > Earlier I said I did not see a reason for not building wish > applications on a build system that lack them. I am stating > that you could argue that your rewriting the path to wish is a > good reason (I would say it is half-good, as you can still tell > the build procedure where wish will be on the deployed system > without having it on your build system) for not building wish > applications in a build that lacks wish installation. OK, so, probably, I should modify the behaviour of the --with-tcltk and configure to look for the Tcl/Tk interpreter _only_ if --with-tcltk[=PATH] was given and to leave the things unmodified in the case of absence of that option. But still, --without-tcltk will disable Tcl/Tk dependant parts. Will people be happy with such behaviour? -- Eygene - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html