[Nut-upsdev] WITH_FOO vs. HAVE_FOO

[Arjen de Korte]

Citeren Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>:

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

It probably has to do when these are evaluated. WITH_FOO is set  
through AM_CONDITIONAL and is used in Makefile.am files. In contrast,  
HAVE_FOO is set through an AC_DEFINE and eventually ends up in the  
'include/config.h' file as a C-preprocessor macro.

Maybe there is no other way to do this (WITH_FOO and HAVE_FOO are both  
set at the same time, based on the same variable in 'configure.in').  
So just replacing HAVE_FOO by WITH_FOO probably isn't going to work.  
Or should we handle this by creating separate objects that are linked  
in, depending on whether something is available or not. In that case,  
we wouldn't need the preprocessor macros. It would surely clean up the  
code a lot, although it may require lots of stub functions (which we  
seem to have for SSL anyway).

Best regards, Arjen
-- 
Please keep list traffic on the list