On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:13 am, Akim Demaille wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that we want to promote config/
Alexandre Who's we?
Well, I for one, and it was something that arose
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:42 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:48:39PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:13 am, Akim Demaille wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that we want to promote config/
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 09:41:00PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
: 2. Subsidiary; supplementary.
Hey, I like sub for "subsidiary".
sub - subsidiary scripts
sub-scripts / subroutines for the build system
subdir for Autoconf stuff :)
Lars J
On Apr 12, 2001, Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
auxiliary:
Sounds perfect... ;-)
Indeed. Its only problem is that people end up naming the directory
`aux', which doesn't work on DOS.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR.
I do too. Akim has already given examples of
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Earnie" == Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Earnie Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to where
mkinstalldirs, config.guess, etc. will be instead of the top level...
Yeah. What do mkinstalldirs, install-sh, missing, depcomp, ylwrap,
etc have to do with config? They're
Alexandre == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that we want to promote config/
Alexandre Who's we?
Well, I for one, and it was something that arose a certain of times.
I do believe Gary too is one of the
"Tim" == Tim Van Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: :
How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR... "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a
bit
"Akim" == Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim Given that we want to promote config/, let's not invent yet
Akim another name. Uniformity is one of the best service we can
Akim offer to our users (maintainers). That's why I'd agree with
Akim SUPDIR _if_ we promote sup/. But it makes
Akim Demaille writes:
Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
point of view, if we take the full picture into account.
If you were operating in a green field, this would be a valid discussion,
but it seems rather silly to discuss a name change for the exclusive
"Peter" == Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Akim Demaille writes:
Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
point of view, if we take the full picture into account.
Peter If you were operating in a green field, this would be a valid
Peter discussion,
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
The SUP would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I
obtained from the definition of auxiliary.
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
The SUP would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I
obtained from the definition of auxiliary.
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
The SUP would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport
| On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Alexandre On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
| The SUP would be for either SUPplementary
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR... "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a bit
strange.
Lars J
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR... "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a bit
strange.
And the original point was also o be consistent
On Apr 10, 2001, "Tim Van Holder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR... "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a bit
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS/ I would like to know why sometimes we end up with ``Earnie Boyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' in the CC.
That's from Earnie's Reply-To:
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS/ I would like to know why sometimes we end up with ``Earnie Boyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' in the CC.
That's from Earnie's Reply-To:
Right. I set the Reply-To that way to help the blind not add my email
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 10, 2001, "Tim Van Holder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR,
On Apr 10, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. I set the Reply-To that way to help the blind not add my email
address back into the distribution.
`Mail-Copies-To: never' would presumably have a similar effect.
Except that not all mailers respect this.
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR. The SUP
would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I obtained from the
definition of auxiliary.
I like it. But now for 2.50.
BTW, Akim, may I go ahead and branch
1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
for not setting one up?
2) We ought to unify the way these macros are named:
AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR
AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR
One ought to change and
| 1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
|wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
|for not setting one up?
The only real question is the name of that directory. I vote for config/.
| 2) We ought to unify the way these
"Lars J. Aas" wrote:
1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
for not setting one up?
Don't know.
2) We ought to unify the way these macros are named:
AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:45:02PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
:
: | 1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
: |wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
: |for not setting one up?
:
: The only real question is the name of
31 matches
Mail list logo
