On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:05:41AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> and the subsequent "make" worked. now, i would have interpreted the
> above to mean that, say, i had no krb4 support, so i should certainly
> be able to add "--without-krb4" to my configure step, right? (yes,
> it's redundant, but i'm just being pedantic.)
> if i do this, the configure step completes but, partway through, you
> can read:
> checking if argv can be written to... yes
> checking if Kerberos4 support is requested... yes
> checking where to look for Kerberos4... libs in no/lib, headers in no/include
> huh? i specifically said i *didn't* want krb4 support, so what does
> this mean? in addition, even though the configuration completes, the
> make eventually fails with:
Looks like a bug in the configure script. The situation when a --without-*
flag is given is handled differently internally from a situation where
no flag is given at all. As you might guess, the --without-* flag sets an
option to the magic string "no" whereas no option at all sets it to the ""
empty string. It seems the latter is handled but the former is not for
kerberos4 and gnutls.
> can anyone explain what's going on here, and why the configuration
> process is so confusing and inconsistent?
While this should be fixed in the curl configure script, the underlying
inconsistency is autoconf's fault. I see no reason that a --without flag
(or --with, depending on what the default should be) should be treated any
differently than when the flag isn't given at all.
http://www.MoveAnnouncer.com The web change of address service
Let webmasters know that your web site has moved
Received on 2005-07-19