-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Randy McMurchy wrote: > Wayne Blaszczyk wrote these words on 07/17/09 21:57 CST: >> The reason for the CONFIGPARMS was to give the end user an easier way of >> cutting and pasting all the optional parameters during the build. Maybe >> the single option --enable-gtk-doc didn't show the benefit. I've >> attached a libgtop example which has a few more optional parameters. >> Let me know if there is a benefit in doing it this way or not. If there >> isn't then I won't do it anymore. > > I really cannot see any benefit. Additionally, it doesn't fit the mold > we want for BLFS. We want to present a build (specific configure options), > that we know works. Then we present some additional options in the > "Command Explanations" section that (we hope) have been tested. > > The libgtop example you show looks to me that it actually makes it > *harder* to cut and paste. Perhaps I need to see it rendered. I'd also > like some input from others. But I don't think at this point using > CONFIGPARMS in some packages and not in others provides an inconstant > look. Maybe just me. > Randy, Fair enough. Regards, Wayne. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFKZN9NhfgHoRhX2wIRAiSPAJ9e9U7yx26hmwa7t6mRESWHFN000wCcCVhn Xfqv4LUaTBUPR4BBKLjss7g= =FQDd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
