Randy McMurchy randy at
Sat Jul 18 08:30:23 PDT 2009

Wayne Blaszczyk wrote these words on 07/17/09 21:57 CST:
> The reason for the CONFIGPARMS was to give the end user an easier way of
> cutting and pasting all the optional parameters during the build. Maybe
> the single option --enable-gtk-doc didn't show the benefit. I've
> attached a libgtop example which has a few more optional parameters.
> Let me know if there is a benefit in doing it this way or not. If there
> isn't then I won't do it anymore.

I really cannot see any benefit. Additionally, it doesn't fit the mold
we want for BLFS. We want to present a build (specific configure options),
that we know works. Then we present some additional options in the
"Command Explanations" section that (we hope) have been tested.

The libgtop example you show looks to me that it actually makes it
*harder* to cut and paste. Perhaps I need to see it rendered. I'd also
like some input from others. But I don't think at this point using
CONFIGPARMS in some packages and not in others provides an inconstant
look. Maybe just me.

I really do appreciate your interest in the project, however. Please
keep it up. Also, please subscribe to the blfs-{book,dev,support} lists
at a minimum.

See my next post for some important information that very well may apply
to you.


rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux i686]
10:23:00 up 11 days, 22:51, 1 user, load average: 0.52, 0.24, 0.08

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list