[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multiple --with-foo possible?
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: Multiple --with-foo possible? |
Date: |
Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:06:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hello!
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 12:54:39PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Thomas Schwinge wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:50AM CEST:
> > Is it possible to have the case handled where multiple ``--with-foo''
> > arguments are given? Currently the last one wins, it seems.
> >
> > What I'd like to support is ``--with-module=this
> > --with-module=another_one ...''. Is this possible?
>
> No, unfortunately not; the possibility to override earlier command line
> arguments is pretty helpful in some cases. You can use
> --with-module=foo,bar,baz
That would be an option, but I also need to pass additional information
per module, à la ``--with-module=FILE,PRIORITY,SHARE,COMMAND LINE''.
> or
> --with-foo-module --with-bar-module...
The ``foo'', ``bar'' parts aren't preassigned, everything is possible.
Also the number of modules isn't limited (in theory).
> If those modules describe parts of your package, then you should be
> using --enable/--disable instead, no?
They don't: they're external files to be embedded into a library.
Regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature