[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Making PATH precious?
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Making PATH precious? |
Date: |
11 Sep 2002 11:08:35 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter) |
| Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
| > What about making PATH a precious variable? This way, we will be able
| > to notice when two runs are performed with different PATH. It would
| > also make
| >
| > PATH=foo ./configure
| >
| > similar to
| >
| > ./configure PATH=foo
| >
| > i.e., ./config.status --recheck will _preserve_ the value of PATH.
| >
| >
| > Now the bad effect is:
| >
| > 1. PATH will automagically appear in Automake's Makefile.in because
| > autoconf AC_SUBST the precious vars and all the AC_SUBST vars are
| > automagically put in Makefile.in.
| >
| > 2. PATH will appear on the command line each time ./config.status
| > --recheck is relaunched. For instance:
|
| Hi Akim!
|
| Also, that would keep me from rebuilding with a different PATH,
| even when I *know* that's what I want to do, Right?
Well, yes :( The point is more to relieve the maintainers from lost
users, than to make _directly_ the maintainers' lives easier.
| I'm not sure it's worthwhile.
| PATH evolves. Inevitably, people will change it,
| and then weeks later, come back to a working directory
| and find that autoconf fails.
s/autoconf/configure/
| Giving a warning might be a good compromise.
Hm... Yes, you are right. Thanks!