From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:02:19 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] gnuplot : new package In-Reply-To: <50E714EF.4090102@relinux.de> References: <1357311193-31887-1-git-send-email-viallard@syscom-instruments.com> <50E6F604.4000401@relinux.de> <20130104172643.72321640@skate> <50E714EF.4090102@relinux.de> Message-ID: <20130104190219.2ff62738@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Stephan Hoffmann, On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:15 +0100, Stephan Hoffmann wrote: > maybe my question was not clear enough. I just wanted to know if this > option is really required. > > Instead, we prefer having small packages that only support the features > > that have been tested by the submitter, and that carefully disables all > > the unsupported features. And then, as features are needed by other > > people, they can submit additional patches to make those additional > > features work. > O.K., I didn't realize that even when configure finds out that no X11 is > present --without-x is needed for this reason. > > For the records: I made a quick test without X11 and it fails to compile > without this option. Generally, it's quite good to have explicit --disable- or --without-. It avoids the configure script from potentially mis-detecting host libraries. Like gnuplot configure script could say "hey, your build machine has X, let's build X support". Passing --without-x avoids that. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com