Recent changes to Configure stripped all visual feedback about configurations parameters. As alternative it's suggested to examine configdata.pm (by running it with flags) and Makefile. I'd like to argue that this poses a two-fold problem.

1. One of ideas behind original output was that user would intuitively provide the output as part of problem report. Leaving no visual information about configuration parameters and leaving no explicit instructions on what problem report receiver would appreciate to see in the report is essentially counter-productive. Even though one can argue that user can and should figure latter out by fine-reading README, INSTALL and NOTES. [Well, one can actually challenge if it's there. As closest it says about failures during make is "try this-n-that and if it's still problem mail openssl-users or report a bug". It does mention configdata --help elsewhere, but apparently nowhere does it say what's considered useful to problem report receiver.]

2. Depriving all visual feedback makes it unnecessary tricky to experiment with additional config command line options. When user passes an additional flag it's reasonable to assume that [s]he would appreciate to see how it's interpreted and affects for example compiler command line parameters. And I'd say that imposing multi-step procedure with multi-page output poses a usability problem.