Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > BTW, I would appreciate the other autoconf and automake maintainers to > speak up, because apparently a reasonable discussion between Akim and me > doesn't seem to be possible anymore.
First let me say that IANAAM (I Am Not An Autoconf Maintainer) but I'm going to give my opinion anyway. I agree with your intent Ralf. But let's stand back and look at what we have. 1) Autoconf is a tool for configuration purposes to help decide what features an environment has or doesn't have and supply values for substitution from the Makefile.in files and create Makefile files. 2) Automake is a tool for configuration purposes to help create the Makefile.in(s) that autoconf uses to create the Makefile(s). 3) Automake is wholly dependent on autoconf and must live within the bounds with which autoconf places on it. 4) Given rule 3, autoconf is in it's rights to implement new features that might break backward compatibility with automake. 5) Give rule 4, it is therefore automake not autoconf that needs to provide for the distribution package name since it is automake that creates the Makefile.in. Conclusion, Akim is very patronizing in offering the fourth optional parameter in AC_INIT. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
