--with-zlib vs. --with-ssl-dir

[Damien Miller]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:31:55 +1100
Darren Tucker <dtucker at zip.com.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:20:54PM -0500, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> > Unnecessarily different, right?  Why not pick one form or
> > the other consistently?
> > 
> >      --with-something-dir         (makes much more sense)
> > or
> >      --with-something             (looks like a package enabler)
> 
> I think the original intent was that the latter would be optional.
> Most of the existing options of that form (eg --with-kerberos5,
> --with-pam and so on) are.

Also OpenSSL has a history of installing itself in a particular
directory (e.g. /usr/local/openssl) as opposed to under a
prefix, such as /usr/local/{lib,include}. 

That was the original intent behind the -with-ssl-dir option IIRC. 

-d