> Greg Hudson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 15:00 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>
>>> -0 on making the current option a fatal error straight away. I'd
>>> rather leave it till a later version, so as not to annoy those who
>>> are invoking this option from a script.
>>
>> Honestly, I think it's very likely that there are 0 people building
>> static Subversion apache modules,
I'm happy to accept your or anyone's judgement on that.
>> and even an option name like
>> --with-static-apache is more likely to confuse people into missing
>> --with-apxs than to do any good.
I'm not quite sure what you meant there. I don't see how changing
"--with-apache" to "--with-static-apache" is going to increase confusion.
It may be that a name change is not really needed and we could clear up the
confusion just be making the help text clearer. Patches attempting that are
welcome. However, for multiple reasons as listed in my previous mail, the name
"--with-apache" is rather poor.
Michael Sweet wrote:
> How about just displaying a warning message at the end of the
> configure output, like you already do when there isn't a local
> copy of Berkeley DB installed?
>
> That way, if someone configured with --with-apache and didn't
> realize that they really wanted --with-apxs, they'll see something
> like:
>
> Warning: You used --with-apache, which is normally only used
> for statically compiling Subversion into Apache.
>
> Use the --with-apxs option to build a dynamically
> loadable Apache module.
>
> Thoughts?
Print the warning just because I used an unusual option? Yuck. No. Software
that prints a warning about what I requested just because some other people
mis-use it makes me angry.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 6 20:54:32 2005