[Nut-upsdev] WITH_FOO vs. HAVE_FOO

[Charles Lepple]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Arjen de Korte <nut+devel at de-korte.org> wrote:
> While adding the tcp_wrappers support, I also noticed that in many cases we
> use both WITH_FOO (usually in Makefile.am) and HAVE_FOO (mostly in the
> sources).
>
> Note that having something available, may not mean that it should be
> configured with it. So in most cases, if we conditionally compile sources,
> we should be testing against WITH_FOO instead of HAVE_FOO. As far as I can
> see, the HAVE_FOO stuff should be replaced almost everywhere by WITH_FOO
> except in configure.in, where the prerequisites for WITH_BAR may require the
> presence of both HAVE_FOO and HAVE_BAR.
>
> Any thoughts?

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that. I wonder if it's just because
packagers tend to enable almost everything?

I don't have time to check into this now, but later this week I can
dig up my autotools book and see if there's some other possible
explanation.

-- 
- Charles Lepple