Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "with_bar".
Did you mean:
with_at
2008 Dec 30
1
WITH_FOO vs. HAVE_FOO
...d be
> configured with it. So in most cases, if we conditionally compile sources,
> we should be testing against WITH_FOO instead of HAVE_FOO. As far as I can
> see, the HAVE_FOO stuff should be replaced almost everywhere by WITH_FOO
> except in configure.in, where the prerequisites for WITH_BAR may require the
> presence of both HAVE_FOO and HAVE_BAR.
>
> Any thoughts?
Interesting, I hadn't noticed that. I wonder if it's just because
packagers tend to enable almost everything?
I don't have time to check into this now, but later this week I can
dig up my autotools bo...