On 2012.05.02 10:36, Uri Lublin wrote: >> I think the idea of using an environmental variable is a good >> compromise, and I don't have much of an objection to it, but like Peter, >> I would like to know if NOCONFIGURE is something that you have seen >> being used in other projects. > > I've seen it in a few projects. > Also google shows some other projects. > I do not mind using a different environment variable name.
How would you and other people feel about having both a bootstrap.sh and an autogen.sh, where bootstrap.sh would not invoke configure and autogen.sh would invoke bootstrap.sh and then call configure? The more I think about it, the more I see it as the best solution, as it will avoid having to deal with multiple paths for deciding or not to run configure. I think the outcome of the previous discussion we had was that most of the scripts that don't call configure are called bootstrap and most of the scripts that do are called autogen so providing both should keep everybody happy. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
