On 05/02/2020 18.40, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:53 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
<f4bug(a)amsat.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:51 PM Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2020 17.09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
[...]
>>>> index 6099be1d84..ecce4ada2d 100755
>>>> --- a/configure
>>>> +++ b/configure
>>>> @@ -349,7 +349,6 @@ unset target_list_exclude
>>>> # Distributions want to ensure that several features are compiled in,
and it
>>>> # is impossible without a --enable-foo that exits if a feature is not
found.
>>>>
>>>> -bluez=""
>>>> brlapi=""
>>>> curl=""
>>>> curses=""
>>>> @@ -1151,10 +1150,6 @@ for opt do
>>>> ;;
>>>> --enable-brlapi) brlapi="yes"
>>>> ;;
>>>> - --disable-bluez) bluez="no"
>>>> - ;;
>>>> - --enable-bluez) bluez="yes"
>>>> - ;;
>>>
>>> Now than I'm bisecting over this commit, I realize removing this
>>> option was not a good idea, we should have done like commit
>>> cb6414dfec8 or 315d3184525:
>>>
>>> @@ -886,10 +885,6 @@ for opt do
>>> - --disable-uuid) uuid="no"
>>> - ;;
>>> - --enable-uuid) uuid="yes"
>>> - ;;
>>> ...
>>> + --enable-uuid|--disable-uuid)
>>> + echo "$0: $opt is obsolete, UUID support is always built"
>&2
>>> + ;;
>>
>> Looks trivial ... so if it bugs you, just send a patch?
>
> I thought about it but this won't fix much, it is too late now.
>
> I simply wanted to share this bugged me so we try to avoid doing the
> same mistake again.
>
I vote for addition of a change similar to what Philippe described.
Feel free to send a patch if it bugs you.
Furthermore, it looks to me the correct way would be to now do full
deprecation of --enable-bluez and --disable-bluez. This means adding
this to documentation (not related to bluetooth devices support), not
only a change in "configure". This also means that only after two next
full cycles these options could be removed.
True, this could have been done together with bluetooth devices
support deprecation (and in that case we could have deleted these
options right away), but it wasn't. Users don't have a crystal ball to
know that we assumed that --enable-bluez and --disable-bluez were part
of bluetooth devices support, and could rightfully complain about an
abrupt elimination of a compile time option.
I disagree. If you don't know that "bluez" is about bluetooth, then you
should likely not use these options anyway.
Thomas