> > I agree with RTFM! as much the next guy, but it seems > > like users might be better off if we renamed > > the buildconf file to autogen.sh. Lots of > > other projects use a script named autogen.sh. > > I am not sure it is a "standard", but why > > be different for no reason? > > And as you point out in a later email, the behaviour of the > various autogen.sh is different in each project. > > It is not a standard, hence your proposal is flawed. > > - Sascha
I guess I don't follow your logic there. So, since someone else does it incorrectly, the whole concept must be flawed from the get go? Why exactly is it "better" for apr to use a custom name for the bootstrap scrip? I suggest you go download the source code to gcc and take a look at the toplevel configure.in file. Does it change your mind about using a configure.in in apr? > May I answer this with a quote of the famous Greg Stein: > > "There is a README.dev in the top level of APR. That is > enough. > > "Not our fault if people don't read the README. > > - Sascha Lets face it, people do not read the README. Mo DeJong Red Hat Inc
