On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 02:00:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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 pa
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 opti
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 offend
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 t
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 l
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
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
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:
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 s
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. P
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
