Le 23 mars 05, � 19:05, Paul Eggert a �crit :
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I never saw that name.
This issue was discussed in bug-gnulib, in the thread starting here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-03/msg00106.html
It is also "commonly" named config/
Yes, that's true, but the argument against using "config" is here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-03/msg00119.html
and it carried the day in the discussion. (My favorite name was "baux", but nobody else liked it. :-)
You bet! :)
build-aux is not absurd, it's just not standard to my eyes. And if something else is different, then I believe that when djm introduced AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR, it had to be read as AC CONFIG_AUX_DIR, not AC CONFIG AUX_DIR, i.e., I believe CONFIG is a name, not a verb. So config-aux is more coherent, but longer, and with a dash in it.
But these are my two cents, I don't care.
