[MPlayer-dev-eng] configure vs. configure

[Ivan Kalvachev]

Attila Kinali said:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:18:40 +0100
> Torinthiel <torinthiel at wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> One from me. What is the difference between setting initial value of
detection to yes or to auto? I don't see any. And I think I should,
It is design issue. As I said I had nerly same problem with the very first
version of configure v2. This is the reason the oldest
detections do use "!=no" while the newest don't.
http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/main/configure.diff?r1=1.285&r2=1.286

>> otherwise there wouldn't be 2 different options. And, maybe because of
the fact that I know something about programming (no, not about MPlayer
internals but general), I prefer having an option of forcing configure
to include it (not that I had to). And by forcing configure to
>> autodetect every time I deny myself this option.
>
> This is how it works currently:
>
> Everything that can be autodetected, will be autodetected
> (that's about 99%)
>
> If you use --enable-XXX you you know what you are doing and
> force the option on, thus disabling autodetection.
This is excacly the problem. This is enable option, not force.

If the option is disabled by default (e.g. xvmc is still beta)
When i --enable-option, i actually skip the detection. In this
case the detection should always make check (for yes and for auto).

If the option is enabled by default, then --enable-option is used as yes
(force).

This meen that detection behavior is dependent if option is enabled by
default or no.

This inconsistensy is very missleading and should be targeted.


>
> If you use --disable-XX you dont want XXX and disable
> overriding any autodetection.
>
> This is IMHO how it should be it gives total control over
> what the configure script does.
> (i had a lot probs with autoconfs behaviour that
> --enable just forces autodetection on, which lead
> to modification of the configure script when it didnt
> work how it should)
Ohh, i talk about mplayer, you talk about autoconf. Again no examples. OK,
why I resumed the treath? I helped a (l)user to fix him compilation
problem. The reason? forgoten --enable-smb. Yeh the very same function
that
was discussed before.
I don't want to flame, but for this user this is a bug. For you
this is a feature. Sounds familiar?! I hope this is not the way for world
domination


If you really want the force, then force option should be added to
configure and all --enable-options to be auto.


 --enable-xv)          _xv=auto        ;;
 --disable-xv)         _xv=no          ;;
 --force-xv)           _xv=yes         ;;
Could it be any better than this??


Best Regards
   Ivan Kalvachev
  iive