[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main configure,1.1197,1.1198

[Ivan Kalvachev]

2006/5/13, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 09:25:14PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > 2006/5/13, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > >On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 07:39:48PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > >> 2006/5/13, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > >> >
> > >> >This discussion ends here for me.  We have already wasted far too much
> > >> >valuable time over nothing.  My decision is final, I will not accept one
> > >> >parameter behaving different from the others.
> > >>
> > >> It does NOT.
> > >>
> > >> What I am trying to explain to you, is that the current semantics is:
> > >> If option is autodetected then --enable will force it.
> > >> If option is disabled then  --enable will autodetect it.
> > >
> > >This is not the current semantics.  The current semantics are that
> > >--enable unconditionally enables an option without checking.  This is
> > >where we differ from autoconf in not trying to second-guess the user
> > >and accept that compilation may fail in some cases.
> >
> > Then how is user supposed to request auto detection if option is
> > disabled by default?
>
> There is (currently) no way to request autodetection.

!

> > Even if we assume that what you state is current semantics,
>
> There is no "if" here.  Was the statement from Rich not clear enough?
> Has the notion that you might actually be wrong ever crossed your mind?
>
> > then you must elaborate why it is better than the one I explained..
>
> Because we do not second-guess the user decision.  Period.  Note that
> this is orthogonal to the question whether we should have an additional
> way of requesting autodetection.

First you don't give users choice to autodetect and then
you don't let them second-guess.

The only result is that if user enables disabled-by-default option,
there is quite big chance compilation to fail.

This kind of altitude against users is normal for gabu and arpi,
but I did not expect this from you.

> > >> That's why all options that have check (they are few indeed) do
> > >> perform check on "yes" and there is no way to force them (e.g. gui).
> > >
> > >This is a false statement, checks are performed on "auto" only.
> >
> > Can you prove that? gui,xvmc,joystic ?
>
> Both joystick and xvmc are unfinished as clearly stated in a comment.
> Whether a user wants to build with or without GUI support is not
> something that you can check for.

There are completely unrelated statements.
I say that there checks performs checks when their state is "yes".
This means that the current policy is the one I give as example.