From xemacs-m  Sun May 18 08:29:33 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03141
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 08:29:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id PAA23811; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:29:26 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
Cc: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: config.cache missing?
References: <kigiv0hw00j.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<199705181302.GAA09835@xemacs.eng.sun.com> 	<kigzpttue0e.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <199705181321.GAA09841@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
X-Save-Project-Gutenberg: <URL:http://www.promo.net/pg/nl/pgny_nov96.html>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
X-Uboat-Death-Message: 
   ATTACKED BY TINY GNATS. UNABLE TO DIVE. ENGAGING VALIUM NOZZLE. U-238.
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 18 May 1997 15:29:25 +0200
In-Reply-To: Martin Buchholz's message of Sun, 18 May 1997 06:21:22 -0700
Message-ID: <kigwwowvrgq.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 38
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2

Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM> writes:

> I'm willing to let you implement this later, as long as it's not the
> default.

Hey, even I have better things to do with my time than implementing
things only to be hidden under a configuration flag.

> Gotcha: (...)

How did GNU Emacs developers avoid the gotchas?

> Caching results is always slower and more reliable than not.

I don't understand this sentence.  Have you meant ``less reliable''?

> I think GNU software configuration has become effectively a lot less
> reliable for many people because of the introduction of caching.

I don't see on what grounds you base this claim.  I've never had
problems with configure caches, especially as `make distclean'
typically removes config.cache.  Site-wide caches are installed by
people who know what they are doing anyway.

> I've run configure hundreds of times over the last weeks, and I
> personally do not want caching.

Then you are either running it on very fast machines or are
exceptionally patient.  For me checking might be important because of
speed.  I was going to try to install a site-wide cache, too.  It
would feel stupid that after all the fuss the program I use most
doesn't facilitate it.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Unspeakable horrors from outer space paralyze the living and
resurrect the dead!

