Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Has such a report ever been sent against the Autoconf package? > I mean, before yours now?
Alexandre says that "this very same topic was debated, inconclusively, on [email protected], a few years ago". The arguments against "config" in the discussion on bug-gnulib in March 2005 were (in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2005-03/msg00119.html): ! I've disliked this name since the day I saw someone do ! cd config ! ls ! looking for configuration files to edit. That was many years ! ago. ! ! I think it is also legitimate to imagine that someone will erase ! the config/ directory before rerunning ./configure with ! different options, thinking that config/ was holding the ! configuration computed by ./configure. ! ! You probably won't do this mistake twice, but the possibility to ! do it once is one reason I don't want to use such an ambiguous ! name. ! ! For me, a directory named config/ should be either related to ! configure, or contain configuration file. Presently the AUX dir ! has almost nothing to do with configure (who only use a couple ! of files therein). and in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2005-03/msg00017.html: ! config-aux/ dir is coherent with how this directory was used 10 years ago. ! ! djm indeed called this the directory for "configuration auxiliary files". ! ! This is no longer the only purpose of this directory nowadays, ! keeping this sense is misleading. > This change is wrong: m4.m4 will only be distributed automatically with > Automake versions >= 1.8, but you didn't change the minimum Automake > version from 1.7.9 in configure.ac. Indeed I didn't assume that the people making an autoconf release would use any automake version < 1.9.6 :-) Feel free to correct things where my patch was wrong. I'm not a regular autoconf contributor, you know. Bruno
