[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: configure -C by default?
From: |
Peter Rosin |
Subject: |
Re: configure -C by default? |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:39:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 |
Den 2011-02-07 11:12 skrev Ralf Corsepius:
> On 02/07/2011 10:02 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Den 2011-02-07 09:14 skrev Ralf Corsepius:
>>> Provided how HW has developed since the discussions from 10 years
>>> ago, you cited about, I am actually leaning towards proposing the
>>> converse of your proposal: Autoconf toconsider to abandoning
>>> config.cache.
>> No, it still needs to be optional.
> I don't have anything against this. However, it's simply that the
> overwhelming majority of current packages hasn't been developed
> with config.caches in mind. And of those which really use it
> (complex packages such as GCC or GDB) occasionally to get things
> wrong. So, IMO, the advantage you believe to see on cygwin or mingw
> is of limited benefit.
What do you mean by "believe to see" and "of limited benefit"?
You are apparently not getting it, or you are downplaying my use case
deliberately. The advantage I see for the packages I care about and
regularly work on is very real: the experience moves from the "pain in
the ass" category to "bearable" when I enable the cache.
I'm not talking about one-time builds on Cygwin, I talking about doing
development there.
Cheers,
Peter
Re: configure -C by default?, Brian Gough, 2011/02/07
Re: configure -C by default?, Eric Blake, 2011/02/07
Re: configure -C by default?, Steffen Dettmer, 2011/02/18