Steve Greenland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 08:02:07PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Client only-ness only applies to the compilation of svnserve. That's
>> C file, and _one_ program link. A tiny amount of processing compared to
>> rest of the compilation.
>>> In particular, I could significant time on some of my machines if I
>>> could tell it
>>> I think they are not always passed to the sub-configures.)
>> Subconfigures? The only subconfigures run are apr, apr-util, and neon.
> I thought I had previously posted the relevant parts of the configure
> logs; I'll need to dig them out again, I guess.
>> Are you speaking of apr-util still looking for BDB? That's the only thing
>> can think of.
>> If so, see the apr-util configure --help for appropriate flags.
> Ummm, if I pass --without-berkeley-db to subversion's configure, it
> needs to pass the appropriate flags to apr-util. (And it might well be: I
> don't remember the exact problem I was seeing.)
On looking into this more closely, it appears that apr-util
understands --without-berkeley-db, and the standard passing of arguments to
subconfigures should take care of this.
So, if you can find out if and why this is not happening, we want to know
>>> language bindings, etc.
>> Aren't built by default anyway.
> Then why are the configures looking for SWIG and Python? That I *do*
At the moment, configure looks regardless. Not wonderful. One of the things
I want to try and fix, some time. Patches welcome.
>>> For those of us who need to support a variety of
>>> architectures locally, this would be useful.
>> If you are supporting a variety of architectures, surely it can't be too
>> much trouble to write a 1-line script containing your preferred
> Nope, but that only help me.
Most cases configure should just do the right thing without special options
>> A few emails here and there, versus a non-trivial amount of extra
>> complexity in the build-system.
> Is making --client-config an alias for a combination of various
> --without* and --disable* options really a big deal? (Forget not
> building svnadmin et. al., you're right, it's not that big a deal.)
I don't know whether autoconf supports options tweaking other options or
not. But is "--without-apxs --without-berkeley-db" really too much for
people to type? It's just 2 options!!!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Feb 11 22:12:36 2005