Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 20:07 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
1. Provide an escape option they can add
2. Package systems can usually apply patches prior to compiling, they can
always remove the offending line if they like.
3. Try and get feedback from them now rather than wait
My feedback is
On 5/9/06, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 20:07 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
1. Provide an escape option they can add
2. Package systems can usually apply patches prior to compiling, they can
always remove the offending line if they like.
3. Try and get
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:37:43AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 20:07 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
1. Provide an escape option they can add
2. Package systems can usually apply patches prior to compiling, they can
always remove the offending line if they like.
Am Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 10:55 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
Can you explain why? Unknown options don't do anything, so having users
remove them seems like a good move.
Build system frameworks assume that they can pass any option and that unknown
options will be ignored. This grew out of
Marko Kreen wrote:
On 5/9/06, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 20:07 schrieb Martijn van Oosterhout:
1. Provide an escape option they can add
2. Package systems can usually apply patches prior to compiling, they can
always remove the offending line if
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:35:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
So at the end of configure the user can visually confirm
his expectations without needing to parse the noise
from full configure output. Maybe this would be better
solution.
Seems we would be best printing out options we
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:34:36AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am thinking we would need an option at the start like --strict that
would throw an error for any later invalid options.
Well, --strict would be tricky, if it's possible. My reading of the
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:13:54AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Well, --strict would be tricky, if it's possible. My reading of the
autoconf code doesn't indicate a means of doing adding abitrary
options. But something like --enable-strict-options would be fairly
straight forward. Problem
I am worried if we change the default behavior that build systems will
fail, but fail after our release when they go to package, and we will
not get feedback until to late.
---
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:28:48PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am worried if we change the default behavior that build systems will
fail, but fail after our release when they go to package, and we will
not get feedback until to late.
I guess there are a number of ways to deal with this:
10 matches
Mail list logo
