Hi Ralf,
I wonder whether all the indirection references ("This should normally
Those are the main things I was wondering about.
be `foodir' but write it as `$(bardir)/foo', and with Autoconf, as
@foodir@) should be changed to the effect that ${bardir}/foo is
recommended as a configure substitution (because it works both in
Makefiles and in shell/perl scripts),
So, if automake, use $(foodir); if autoconf, use @foodir@;
otherwise, use ${bardir}/foo. ?
and that, if the user not only uses Autoconf but also Automake, she
can write it as $(foodir) rather than @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doesn't this practice contradict the recommendation of using ${...}?
And, although I knew this was possible, I've forgotten why it's
desirable to use $(...) instead of @[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm lost, sorry ...
> Also, I noticed one discrepancy: the DV node talks about "lispdir", but
> there is no --lispdir and no @lispdir@ either; at least it doesn't
> appear in the manual.
And Autoconf doesn't define them by default, either.
But should it? I suppose there's no real need, since any packages that
need it have already done it themselves. It just seems odd.
> Also, I'm not sure about standardizing --program-prefix/suffix/transform.
> Any thoughts on that?
Well, apart from the fact that the executable extension should not be
I think I'll leave it alone :).
Thanks,
k
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
