| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options |
| Date: | 2006-05-05 12:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E401387F15@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Marko Kreen
> Sent: 05 May 2006 12:22
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Have configure complain about
> unknown options
>
> As PostgreSQL tree is not set up that way, I think for
> clarity sake it would be better to give explicit errors for
> unknown options.
>
I'm not in a position to argue about why autoconf works this way, but I
can say that I'd like to see unsupported options rejected if there is a
sensible way to do it. I've been bitten more than once by mistakenly
using --enable-foo rather than --with-foo, or just plain mis-typing.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-05 12:34:36 | Re: [PATCH] Have configure complain about unknown options |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-05 12:22:59 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64 |