Tim Rightnour wrote: > On 12-Jul-03 Todd Mitchell wrote: > >> I still think there should be a switch that doesn't do crossedit unless you >> specify you want to build it (or perhaps checks if the X headers is >> installed...) > > > It should definately not attempt to build if X11 cannot be found. Perhaps an > additional switch to configure, like --no-crossedit. Well, there is a reason that crossedit is last in the list of things it builds - that way, if you are missing the libraries, the failure to compile doesn't prevent anything else from compiling. I unfortunately think that such conditional compilation for that is less easy than most things. It's very easy to put in #ifdef HAVE_FEATURE #endif blocks. The problem here is this is an entire directly you want to skip if you don't have X, and a directory to process if you do have it. The current way the automake files are set up makes this less than easy I think. And since automake is in use, it presumes that when you say the target is 'crossedit', you will always want to compile it. I don't know - there may be some way to deal with this in automake. But I don't know how, and given how often this comes up, and the fact it is really only an annoyance and not a significant problem, it isn't really worth my time to figure it out. Having a flag to configure doesn't really change the complexity of this - if configure could do the right thing on a flag, it could also do the right thing if it is missing the libraries. The reason that the client can be clever about not compiling differnt things based on libraries is that it doesn't use automake - it only uses autoconf. Thus, more of the makefile is written by hand (vs automake), so it is possible to put in more checks/controls. _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel