Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> >> IIRC it was made a non-fatal warning somewhere near the end of the
>> >> output, but I'm not sure...
>> > It spits out this line just before it creates its output files:
>> >    *** Option ignored: --with-lkjasdf
>> Of course, since it spits out pages and pages of normally-useless
>> trivia,
>> we've all become conditioned to ignore configure's output as long as it
>> doesn't actually fail :-(
>> Not sure what to do about that --- I doubt that raising this warning to
>> error would be a good idea, seeing how firmly the upstream developers
>> believe it shouldn't even be a warning.  Is there any sort of "quiet
>> mode" possible that would report only warnings?  Would it be a good idea
>> if it were possible?
> I think one idea is a "pedantic" mode that fails if an unrecognized
> option is supplied.

I do not see any point at all in a special mode. If you know enough to
want to use it you should be able to protect yourself more directly from
needing it, simply by taking care to use correct switches.

Frankly, I'd let sleeping dogs lie, in this case.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to