Re: [PATCH 1/3] maint: rename `libltdl/config' directory to standard `build-aux'.

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Gary V wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 1 Nov 2011, at 21:57, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > Hi Gary, hope you won't mind few nits from an outsider ...
> 
> Absolutely not, any and all feedback is always extremely welcome. Thank you.
> 
> > On Tuesday 01 November 2011, Gary V wrote:
>
> >> # The timestamps on these files must be preserved carefully so we install,
> >> # uninstall and set executable with custom rules here.
> >> -auxfiles  = $(pkgaux_scripts) config/ltmain.sh
> >> +auxdest           = build-aux
> >> +auxfiles  = $(pkgaux_scripts) $(auxdest)/ltmain.sh
> >> 
> > 
> >> # Everything that gets picked up by aclocal is automatically distributed,
> >> # this is the list of macro files we install on the user's system.
> >> -aclocalfiles      = m4/argz.m4 m4/libtool.m4 m4/ltdl.m4 m4/ltoptions.m4 \
> >> -            m4/ltsugar.m4 m4/ltversion.m4 m4/lt~obsolete.m4
> >> +macrodest = m4
> >> +aclocalfiles      = $(macrodest)/argz.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/libtool.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/ltdl.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/ltoptions.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/ltsugar.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/ltversion.m4 \
> >> +            $(macrodest)/lt~obsolete.m4
> >> 
> > Shouldn't this better be done in either a preparatory or follow-up patch?
> > 
> > Ditto for other similar changes.
> 
> I like to make sure the tree is capable of passing `make distcheck' after
> every patch,
>
And this is a very good policy, with which I fully agree.  What I meant
was: wouldn't be better to introduce the $(auxdest), $(macrodest) and
$(ltdldest) in a preparatory patch (with no semantic change), so that
the edit to `Makefile.am' done in the present patch patch can be brought
down to a minimal change like "auxdest = config" => "auxdest = build-aux"?

> and splitting this one into "move directories around" and 
> "fixup the aftermath" would leave the tree broken in the middle...
>
This is not what I proposing, not at all!  What I was proposing is:

 1. in a first, preparatory patch, factor out the names/locations of
    the directories in proper variables and/or makefile macros;

 2. in the "real" patch, move the directories around, leveraging on the
    previous refactoring to ensure this moving can be done with smaller
    and more self-contained changes.

Sorry if I failed to express myself correctly; I hope I've made my
point clearer this time.

Regards,
  Stefano