wblaszcz at bigpond.net.au
Mon Jul 20 14:19:09 PDT 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the blfs-dev