Re: make caught doing what configure should...

* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [010323 08:47] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
> >> Besides, I think the warning message is appropriate in any case, since
> >> it lets bison-less people know that they had better not blow away gram.c
> >> or hack on gram.y.
>
> > Er, not really, it (the warning) gets blown away by all the rest
> > of the ./configure output. It might as well error out, not just
> > warn, then you can actually see the message.
>
> Erroring out would be completely inappropriate unless we had made an
> *accurate* check that gram.c was out of date. I think that's probably
> a cure worse than the disease; we risk unnecessary configure failures
> to gain, well, not a lot. You're right that configure's output is too
> chatty for many people; but isn't there a "--quiet" option? Seems like
> that's what they should be using if they don't want to see details.

GRR! :)

The make will still bomb out.

It's my opinion that if the configure script detects a situation
that will make compilation impossible _it_ should abort, not proceed
to allow the user to run make when it knows it will not succeed.

I mean it wouldn't make much sense for it to give a warning about
all variants of "fork()" not existing would it?

--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/