[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default}
From: |
Ben Pfaff |
Subject: |
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default} |
Date: |
01 Sep 2002 23:52:31 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Russ Allbery <address@hidden> writes:
> This seems like obviously bad advice to me. How is one expected to handle
> something like specification of a default paper size unless there's a user
> switch somewhere?
>
> Surely the GNU coding standards aren't arguing that editing a cryptic
> configuration file is an improvement over a configure switch?
In my experience, a cryptic configuration file is almost always
an improvement over a configure switch. To change a configure
switch, I have to find the program's source code and figure out
and go through its configuration, compilation, and installation
procedure. To change a configuration file, I just have to find
it and edit it, and if it's well-written then it even has a
comment above each option explaining my choices.
This is especially important when the software is provided in a
pre-packaged form. For the purpose of a Debian binary package,
for instance, the end user will not want to retrieve the source
code and recompile just to change something that should be in a
configuration file.
--
address@hidden - address@hidden - address@hidden - address@hidden
Re: --with-foo= vs. FOO=${FOO:-foo_default}, Akim Demaille, 2002/09/03