* Jim Warhol wrote on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:37:44PM CET: > >Even packages that don?t use Autoconf will generally provide a > >?configure? script, and the most common complaint about these > >alternative home-grown scripts is that they fail to meet one or more > >of the GNU Coding Standars > >(see Section ?Configuration? in The GNU Coding Standards) that users have > >come to expect from Autoconf-generated ?configure? scripts. > > s/GNU Coding Standars/GNU Coding Standarfs/
Thanks. I pushed the patch below in your name, and added you to THANKS. > Also, the link pointing to the GNU Coding Standards is > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/standards.pdf, which doeesn't > work. Ah, we've never taken care of the PDF inter-manual links on www.gnu.org, only for the one-page and multi-page HTML ones. I've added them in automake/manual/.symlinks in the www CVS now, so please report back if things still don't work. THanks, Ralf 2011-01-29 Jim Warhol <jrw@...> (tiny change) * doc/autoconf.texi (Introduction): Fix typo. * THANKS: Update. diff --git a/doc/autoconf.texi b/doc/autoconf.texi index 419dff3..b1ccb1a 100644 --- a/doc/autoconf.texi +++ b/doc/autoconf.texi @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ Introduction the resulting @file{configure}. Even packages that don't use Autoconf will generally provide a @file{configure} script, and the most common complaint about these alternative home-grown scripts is that they fail -to meet one or more of the GNU Coding Standars (@pxref{Configuration, , , +to meet one or more of the GNU Coding Standards (@pxref{Configuration, , , standards, The GNU Coding Standards}) that users have come to expect from Autoconf-generated @file{configure} scripts.
