[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Another Qt/gtk configure patch
nthiebaud at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 04:44:18 PDT 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Wols Lists <antlists at youngman.org.uk> wrote:
> On 02/11/10 08:54, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:18:46 +0000, Wols Lists wrote:
>>> I've now got configure autodetecting Qt4, and created an "automagic"
>>> patch. Things are still partly broken because to fix things properly I
>>> need to get rid of OOO_WIDGET_FLAGS, and that's probably a big job ...
>>> Adds a new --enable-automagic option.
>> Shouldn't automagic be the default? ie building support for whatever is
>> available on the machine sounds a sensible default to
>> me. People/Packagebuilder can still manually enable/disable support fot
> I get the impression it isn't. Do we really want to enable a bunch of
> obscure options by default? cf the discussion we just had about
> binfilter (although I gather that's slightly different :-)
> Anyways, we've now got the option - configure will by default set up a
> sane bunch of options, while automagic will force all defaults to either
> "on" or "off".
> In particular, there's a page on the gentoo wiki (I've put a pointer to
> it in our development wiki) that says that automatically enabling things
> can be a packager's nightmare. They've only got to miss a "disable" for
> some weird option they happen to have installed, and next thing they
> know they've shipped a package that depends on this weird option - AND
> DOESN'T DOCUMENT THAT FACT!
How about a --packager-mode kind of flag, that will yell at you if you
forgot to explicitly choose a value ?
> That's why, imho, "disable-automagic" is important (and that's why it's
> called magic not matic :-). If that happens, it's now an upstream bug,
> not a silly packager. And it's easy for us to fix each option as we add
> it, not so easy for them to spot we've enabled something obscure.
>> /me shrugs. Not sure.
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the LibreOffice