From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11710 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2011 18:05:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11700 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2011 18:05:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:05:04 +0000 Received: by vxk20 with SMTP id 20so850372vxk.0 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:05:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.124.17 with SMTP id s17mr308095vcr.174.1303841102840; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.186.11 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:05:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: binutils prerequisites (recent zlib version - what else?) From: kevin diggs To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Steffen Dettmer , binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 Hi, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Unrecognized --with options are ignored. =A0The difference in the > > Ian > Why? Wouldn't it be better to tell the poor, confused user that they are configuring up the wrong tree? So that we can go RTFM and get the right option (or whine and complain if the desired functionality does not exist)? As always, Thanks!!! kevin