flags for base's configure script: should there be more or fewer? (was "Fwd: [MacPorts] #42756: macports doesn't compile with bundled tcl")

[Joshua Root]

On 2014-3-8 07:13 , Eric Gallager wrote:
> Bringing this discussion to macports-dev as suggested. Anyways, r117621
> <https://trac.macports.org/changeset/117621> removed a bunch of flags
> from the configure script in base, many of which I found useful.
> Personally, I generally prefer giving users more configure options
> rather than fewer, as I respect users' freedom to build their software
> the way that they want to, and would prefer that exercising that freedom
> remains as easy as possible (here, in the form of providing configure
> flags, but the concept can also be extended to things like adding more
> variants to Portfiles). Anyways, that is my personal preference at
> least, which way are other people on this list leaning? 

"Batteries included" is generally preferable to more variants. I would
tend to agree that the problem in the ticket is user error, but OTOH
it's easy to have CFLAGS lying around in your environment and forget to
unset them. Maybe we should at least delete flags containing $PREFIX
from CFLAGS and LDFLAGS like we do PATH.

Looks like the flags removed by r117621 were:

--with-tcl
--with-tclinclude
--with-tclpackage
--with-tcl-sqlite3=
--with-included-tclthread

As Tcl is now part of base, my view would be that providing flags to use
a different one would make about as much sense as providing
--with-pextlib= or --with-cregistry=.

> larryv at least
> has already come out as deletionist, but what about the rest of you?

Name calling really doesn't help your case.

- Josh