Everything

php

Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » --enable-all »

--enable-all

php.internals

(Marcus Börger)

23 years ago

I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
difference should hold for --enable-all, too.

regards
marcus

Peter Neuman

23 years ago

Hello,

"Marcus Börger" <marcus.boerger@t-online.de>:

> I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
> being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
> we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
> difference should hold for --enable-all, too.

which is actually differentiated between --with-xyz and --enable-xyz?

Thanks
Peter Neuman

(Marcus Börger)

23 years ago

At 17:28 05.04.2003, Peter Neuman wrote:

>Hello,
>
>"Marcus Börger" <marcus.boerger@t-online.de>:
>
> > I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
> > being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
> > we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
> > difference should hold for --enable-all, too.
>
>which is actually differentiated between --with-xyz and --enable-xyz?

--enable-xyz is for ectension not depending on external libraries and
--with-xyz
is for extensions depending on external libraries.

marcus

Jani Taskinen

23 years ago

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:

>I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
>being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
>we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
>difference should hold for --enable-all, too.

I never advertized --enable-all. It was just a side-effect of
--disable-all and should never be used by anyone.

I removed the --enable-all from the configure help now.
I'll disable it fully later..

--Jani

(Marcus Börger)

23 years ago

At 19:48 05.04.2003, Jani Taskinen wrote:

>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>
> >I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
> >being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
> >we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
> >difference should hold for --enable-all, too.
>
>    I never advertized --enable-all. It was just a side-effect of
>    --disable-all and should never be used by anyone.
>
>    I removed the --enable-all from the configure help now.
>    I'll disable it fully later..
>

Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.

marcus

Rasmus Lerdorf

23 years ago

> Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
> extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
> and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.

--with-all is rather unrealistic, isn't it?  Some of the --with flags are
mutually exclusive as well so you can never have a real --with-all.

-Rasmus

(Marcus Börger)

23 years ago

At 20:11 05.04.2003, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

> > Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
> > extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
> > and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.
>
>--with-all is rather unrealistic, isn't it?  Some of the --with flags are
>mutually exclusive as well so you can never have a real --with-all.

In this case let us make --enable-all do simply activate all things not
dependin on txternal libs and all is fine.

marcus

Jani Taskinen

23 years ago

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:

>At 19:48 05.04.2003, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Marcus Börger wrote:
>>
>> >I just noticed the fact that --enable-all also works for all --with-xyz by
>> >being mailed about it. IMHO there should be an --with-all. This because
>> >we have a clear difference between --enable-xy and --with-xy. This
>> >difference should hold for --enable-all, too.
>>
>>    I never advertized --enable-all. It was just a side-effect of
>>    --disable-all and should never be used by anyone.
>>
>>    I removed the --enable-all from the configure help now.
>>    I'll disable it fully later..
>>
>
>Jani, IMO --enable-all is a good thing but it shouldn't apply to --with
>extensions. So perhaps we should have an undocumented --with-all
>and make --enable-all what it is supposed to.

No. --disable-all is fine as it is. I don't want to add any MORE
options to get the smallest possible build:

./configure --disable-all --disable-cgi

Having to add also --without-all..well..it's just stupid.

--Jani