Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The changes here for the GNU Coding Standards (which I'm proposing, > > and RMS has now agreed to) will not add any new paths, it will simply > > change some that currently exist. > > For this to be effective and useful, it would mean that most every GNU > package would need to be updated, right?
Eventually. Packages do not spring into compliance instantaneously. > If this meant converting more packages to automake and upgrading the version > of autoconf that these packages used, that would be a Good Thing. More or less, yes.
