On Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:25:45 AM -0400 Rodney M Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it all boils down to... If you are going to allow the user to set the location of their compiler at all, then you should "obey" that throughout, otherwise what is the point? And more to the point, why does a configure script try to "overly agressive" find anything? Let me "configure" where everything is with the "configure" script, eh?
So, I think you are confused. The vast majority of the configure script isn't code we wrote; it comes from autoconf. On certain platforms, for reasons I already explained, we ignore the compiler that is selected for us by that standard test, and use a hard-coded one instead.
Yes, this is ugly, and we know it doesn't always play nice with the configure tests, and causes problems for a few people. We didn't design the architecture of autoconf, and it doesn't really deal well out of the box with the extra constraints involved in building kernel code. Making this work "right" is certainly on the todo list, but at a much lower priority than things like actually fixing bugs. In the meantime, given the relatively small number of people affected, how easy the problem is to work around, and that the most vocal complainers won't be happy until it is actually done right, doing throwaway work on the ugly hack is just more effort than it's worth.
I've described how to work around the problem, and you've pointed out another way that also works. Which method is most appropriate for any given person probably depends on their particular philosophy about how to build software. For now, I suggest that affected parties pick one and get on with life.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
