[Nut-upsdev] Re: checking for libusb in configure.in

Charles Lepple clepple at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 02:44:10 CET 2006

On 12/3/06, Peter Selinger <selinger at mathstat.dal.ca> wrote:
> Sure, that's as easy as enclosing lines 447-526 in an "if" test for
> with_usb.

I figured it was something like that, but I just wanted to check first.

> The reason I tested for the USB libraries unconditionally is that I
> thought in the future, we may want to go the opposite route: if
> neither --with-usb nor --without-usb is given, then check for the
> requisite libraries and enable USB drivers by default if they are
> found.

That's a neat idea. I think it fits the "Principle of Least Surprise"
for both users and packagers.

For now, I'm just going to add the first test you suggested, and do
the same for Net-SNMP (in a separate commit). I'd like to follow up on
the detection logic later, but I won't complain if someone else beats
me to it.

> --with-drivers=all is the default, so there should not be a need to
> specify this option explicitly. Perhaps we should get rid of the "all"
> terminology and just use the empty string instead. The point is that
> "all" means "the user has not requested any particular specific
> drivers".  If you really want to build all drivers, then specify
> --with-all.

I realize that --with-drivers=all is the default, but I guess I didn't
quite get the distinction between --with-drivers=all and --with-all.

- Charles Lepple

More information about the Nut-upsdev mailing list