> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 1:13:29 PM UTC+2, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> > It is not a bug, it is a feature. Whenever the arguments to configure
> > request a certain feature, and it doesn't find the necessary software,
> > it falls back on disabling it.
> That's what I would count as feature for implicit options, which I
> didn't write as option of configure script.
> If I explicitly write '--with-x=yes' option, then IMHO user needs the
> option satisfied for sure, not just quiet disabling and saying
> 'everything is fine'.
> I didn't try '-enable-fail-if-missing' flag before Chris mentioned it,
> but I tried it after that and configure script still doesn't fail :(
> when X headers and libs are missing on the server.
This is because checking for X is the default. We can add an explicit
check for this. I agree that when passing --with-x to configure you
expect it to fail when X could not be configured. It's probably quite
common that the X development package is missing, thus it's good to call
that an error. Of course it will still go unnoticed if you use the
defaults.
--
Apologies for taking up the bandwidth with the apology. Anything else I
can apologise for ...... er no can't think of anything, sorry about that.
Andy Hunt (Member of British Olympic Apology Squad)
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
