On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fine but it looks like the question is why you can't configure without that
> dependency and just lose that ability. At least that is what I understood was
> being asked. (Could easily have missed something.)

A fair question.  The answer is 'no one did that work because no one
has wanted/needed it up until now.'

You're going to regret posting in this thread, Monty--I can tell.