Salut Akim! Akim Demaille wrote: > 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.
FWIW, I'm right with you here. I think that using build as part of build-aux
is potentially confusing in light of the use of build, host and target
elsewhere in autoconf terminology.
config-aux makes a lot more sense, and without a doubt config will be seen
more commonly by people who compile a lot of GNUish packages.
> But these are my two cents, I don't care.
I do! The macro is parameterized in order that the project maintainer can
choose a name that they like, so I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever
directory name they see fit. But I think the autoconf documentation should
reflect reality -- config is the commonly used name -- and perhaps suggest the
use of a preferred name, although I have my reservations about the use of
build-aux.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
