Unnecessarily different, right? Why not pick one form or
the other consistently?
--with-something-dir (makes much more sense)
or
--with-something (looks like a package enabler)
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Jeff Blaine wrote:> Unnecessarily different, right? Why not pick one form or > the other consistently? > > --with-something-dir (makes much more sense) > or > --with-something (looks like a package enabler)I think the original intent was that the latter would be optional. Most of the existing options of that form (eg --with-kerberos5, --with-pam and so on) are. -- Darren Tucker (dtucker at zip.com.au) GPG key 8FF4FA69 / D9A3 86E9 7EEE AF4B B2D4 37C9 C982 80C7 8FF4 FA69 Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgement.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:31:55 +1100 Darren Tucker <dtucker at zip.com.au> wrote:> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Jeff Blaine wrote: > > Unnecessarily different, right? Why not pick one form or > > the other consistently? > > > > --with-something-dir (makes much more sense) > > or > > --with-something (looks like a package enabler) > > I think the original intent was that the latter would be optional. > Most of the existing options of that form (eg --with-kerberos5, > --with-pam and so on) are.Also OpenSSL has a history of installing itself in a particular directory (e.g. /usr/local/openssl) as opposed to under a prefix, such as /usr/local/{lib,include}. That was the original intent behind the -with-ssl-dir option IIRC. -d