On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 12:25:47AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > So if we want to provide some way to use ctexi2any as the texi2any > > implementation, I'd suggest we find some other way of doing it than > > a configure option. The only idea I have is to use an environment variable > > instead. texi2any.pl could detect this environment variable and delegate > > to ctexi2any. > > I do not find that idea very good, in my opinion, it would lead to > unneeded complexity, possible confusion and would be overall less useful. > I do not think that we should follow those rules to the point of > choosing an inferior design. > > > Overall, I am not convinced by the argumentation about --enable, > because, as far as I can say (but I must say that those rules are not > crystal clear to me), we use --enable for things other than "questions > of whether to build part of the program or exclude it" for other > options, for instance --enable-perl-xs, --enable-xs-perl-libintl, > --enable-perl-install-mode. Yet, those seem useful and relevant, and I > wouldn't like to have them removed for the sake of following that rule > which, unless I missed something, is trying to avoid something else.
It is not important in my option, as I don't expect that many users will want to use --enable-using-c-texi2any. It is easy for them to ignore the option so it is not a problem. I agree that it is similar to the --enable-perl-xs option, except that ctexi2any is built even if the option is not given.
