On Aug 4, 2000, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> The problem is that I don't agree that keeping multiple m4 files in
>> the source tree is a simpler and cleaner approach. I think
>> maintaining a single aclocal.m4 is simpler and cleaner.
> I don't quite see how maintaining one big file is better than (giving the
> option of) maintaining several small files.
I had promised to remain silent, but I have to jump in to fix a
misunderstanding. I wrote that in the context of being forced to
choose between (i) maintaining a single aclocal.m4 file or
(ii) *always* maintaining several small files. What I'm arguing for
is precisely the `(giving the option of)' :-)
> At one point there was an AC_INCLUDE macro, I liked that very much
I was the one who proposed it. Isn't it curious how it turned against
myself :-) :-)
BTW, it still exists, we still want to support it, it's just called
m4_include now, for some reason I forget now. I myself am still
attached to the AC_INCLUDE name :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
