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

[Jeff Blaine]

Both comments understood.  Do they change anything
though?  It still seems off to me.  I have to think
there's a better way to denote "this is optional" :)

Removing '-dir' from an argument that makes sense to
have it, to make it like the other arguments that are
optional, seems awful obtuse :)

But if everyone else is happy with it, I'm sure I'll
live.

Damien Miller wrote:
> 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
>