I notice configure from 6.5 cvs doesn't checks anything after --with
option. First time I run
./configure --with-port=5433 
and was very surprised when postmaster doesn't want to start with port=5433
after compilation and installation. Configure doesn't complaints !!!
It takes some time when I realized I had to 
./configure --with-pgport=5433

Also,  you can specify any option begins from --with-
configure will not complain about unknown option, just silently ignore it.

	Regards,

		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Fri, 14 May 1999 17:28:06 +0400 (MSD)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
configure  --with-xxxx problem

> (*) their reasoning is that you can pass the same set of --with flags
> to every configure script in a large source tree without worrying about
> exactly which packages want which options.  Perhaps that really is
> useful for building a ton of GNU tools together, but it sure hurts
> user-friendliness otherwise.

That should be easy to make configurable: they'd just have to add a
flag '--ignore-unsupported-options' to make this optional behaviour.

Maarten

-- 

Maarten Boekhold, boekhold@tibco.com
TIBCO Finance Technology Inc.
The Atrium
Strawinskylaan 3051
1077 ZX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31 20 3012158, fax: +31 20 3012358
http://www.tibco.com

Fri, 14 May 1999 16:40:35 +0200
Maarten Boekhold <boekhold@tibco.com>
Re: [HACKERS] configure --with-xxxx problem
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> you can specify any option begins from --with-
> configure will not complain about unknown option, just silently ignore it.

This has always been true with every version of autoconf --- it's one of
the less well designed aspects of autoconf IMHO.  The GNU folk claim
it's a feature, but I don't think so... (*)

			regards, tom lane

(*) their reasoning is that you can pass the same set of --with flags
to every configure script in a large source tree without worrying about
exactly which packages want which options.  Perhaps that really is
useful for building a ton of GNU tools together, but it sure hurts
user-friendliness otherwise.

Fri, 14 May 1999 10:46:04 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] configure --with-xxxx problem 
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > you can specify any option begins from --with-
> > configure will not complain about unknown option, just silently ignore it.
> 
> This has always been true with every version of autoconf --- it's one of
> the less well designed aspects of autoconf IMHO.  The GNU folk claim
> it's a feature, but I don't think so... (*)
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> (*) their reasoning is that you can pass the same set of --with flags
> to every configure script in a large source tree without worrying about
> exactly which packages want which options.  Perhaps that really is
> useful for building a ton of GNU tools together, but it sure hurts
> user-friendliness otherwise.

I totally agree.  If they had an option to disregard unknown options
that would be OK, but never to make it the default.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sat, 15 May 1999 04:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] configure --with-xxxx problem