Nice-to-have fix for autogen.sh

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> Again, it's not a matter of annoyances.
>>
>> "Again"? You brought it up yourself! :-)
>
> Quote 1 (your previous e-mail):
> > And exactly analogously for people who find _not_ running it an
> > annoyance!
>
> Quote 2 (mail before that):
> > I don't know about you, but I do not usually want any of the options
> > that are enabled by default (except for maintainer mode some of the
> > time).

You want quotes?  Let's not quote out of context then:

>>> That is not an argument for either way.
>>
>> Well, I think it quite restricts the scope of the people who are
>> expected to find that having an autogen that runs configure is an
>> annoyance.
>
> And exactly analogously for people who find _not_ running it an
> annoyance!

You brought up "annoyance".  You might think I am annoyed with
the current behaviour, and you might well be right (I am annoyed
with most software after all), but if you think I base "what I
think is best for libusbx" on "what I like best" you are dead wrong.


>> It is also not helpful that our samples are built with the in-tree
>> built library, it doesn't give any example how to use the library
>> that way.
>
> A sample in whatever location is still more helpful than no sample  
> anywhere. If you want to dispute that too, be my guest.
> Of course, fixing the location can help, if it needs to fixing, but  
> that's a completely different issue.

I am saying it would be nice if we had an example that is built the
same way as any user's program would be, i.e. using an installed
libusb and using pkg-config.  Or even all the examples.  That is all.
It's completely tangential.

>> What I am saying is that any user should be able to turn on logging
>> with any built version of libusbx, just like there should be seat
>> belts in any car, not just those used by the crash test dummies.
>
> I agree. That is exactly what I proposed about 2 years ago in  
> libusb-devel and that was rejected by Daniel.

And now we have libusbx, such decisions can be revisited :-)

>> My point is that people who build a lot just do not matter, they
>> _will_ have their own build scripts. Unless they really like
>> typing :-)
>
> You still fail to comprehend that the main reason I am pushing for  
> keeping autogen.sh the way it is is not because *I* would be  
> annoyed if it was otherwise (which I would be, but that's a minor  
> factor, see the hospital analogy), but because I see it as  
> benefiting the most users, including the ones who don't build a lot.

I do not fail to comprehend.  I just do not agree.

Anyway, if we switch to using autoreconf in autogen.sh, everyone
should be happy?

> I tried to make it clear that very little of what I advocate was  
> motivated by my needs or inconveniences, but apparently you still  
> believe that this whole thing is just a matter of personal annoyances,

Not at all.

> which brings us precisely on why I stated "Again". And here  
> _again_, you are very much implying above that my motivation for  
> wanting to keep autogen the way it is would be because of my  
> annoyance of having to type an extra command.

I did not say or imply that.

> My prime concern is, and has always been with libusb/libusbx users  
> at large, and in this case especially first time users of libusbx/ 
> git [because first impressions are often critical], who are  
> expected to build a limited amount of time. Therefore we might as  
> well help them get the most beneficial options, whether you or I or  
> anybody else find it inconvenient or not.

So we agree.


Segher