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

[Roumen Petrov]

The common (standard) use for optional packages is:
   --with-PACKAGE[=ARG]    use PACKAGE [ARG=yes]
This is "two state" argument:
-enable:
   --with-PACKAGE or --with-PACKAGE=yes
-disable:
   --with-PACKAGE=no or --without-PACKAGE


To minimize arguments many projects use "three state" --with-PACKAGE[=PATH] :
-enable and search in default locations:
   --with-PACKAGE or --with-PACKAGE=yes
-enable and search in specified prefix and optionaly in default locations:
   --with-PACKAGE=path
-disable:
   --with-PACKAGE=no or --without-PACKAGE


Without "three state" argument configure script sould use two arguments:
   --with-PACKAGE[=ARG] or --enable-FEATURE
, to enable/disable package/feature and one more
   --with-PACKAGE-dir=PATH or --PACKAGE-dir=PATH or ...
, to specify location.


I prefer "three state" arguments.


Jeff Blaine wrote:
> 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