Re: ac-archive: ax_cflags_<option> macros...

[Guido Draheim]

Ville Laurikari schrieb:
> I'm not on the autoconf list so excuse me for possibly repeating stuff
> that has been on the list already.  Also, if you want me to reply, CC
> your list replies to me as well.

there was nothing so far, and even the initial post included your
address, so it is most likely all responders will as well ;-)

> It's good that your macro names are prefixed with ax_ instead of ac_
> or a personal prefix (like guido_).  People feel that ax_ or ac_ -macros
> are "more official" than macros prefixed with just some guy's
> initials, and are more likely to use them.  But the ac_ prefix is
> reserved for official autoconf macros, right?
>
> Some of my original macros have the ac_ prefix, and I later renamed
> them to have the vl_ prefix so as not to pollute the official macro
> namespace with my silly inventions.  I was flamed for this of course
> (I wasn't aware of just how widely used some of the macros had become
> and I made life a little harder for some people).   

I hope that the "obsolete"-marking in the ac-archive can help in that
a bit, so that maintainance is supported (there as another post on
the autoconf ML about this).

As for the prefixes
a) the AC_ prefix should be reserved for macros shipped by "autoconf"
b) the AM_ prefix should be reserved for macros shipped by "automake"
c) the AX_ prefix is fine for every macro shipped with the "ac-archive"
b) a different prefix is good for something not shipped by a)b)c)

That ensures that there will never be two macros with the same name
and different sources - and which could possibly shadow each other
for executions of autoconf or aclocal or acinclude tools - and which
would in turn make for hard-to-find bugs when their implementation
differs slightly.

It was utterly correct to rename your macro from AC_ to something
different, since it could have been really that autoconf might
ship a similar macro later on. Well, renaming without tools that
automate an update-process, hmm, it must be a PITA, but it was
necessary IMO anyway. It's probably not needed again ;-) and now
everyone submitting an AC_-macro to me would be hinted to rename
it please into an AX_-macro for inclusion into the ac-archive :-)=)

thanks, have fun, guido                    http://ac-archive.sf.net
p.s. sadly, I can not make that last a strict rules, since I am not
in the ruling over the gnuorg ac-archive - in fact Peter has thrown
me out about a year ago, he does not inform me about changes, I can
not update macros that I receive directly into the savannah cvs, the
mailing process is always weeks in delay with him making the gnuorg
ac-archive somewhat late in comparison, and new people might only
get to know the rules of the gnuorg ac-archive since Peter broke
his promise to put up a crosslink from the gnuorg ac-archive to the
sfnet branch, and the autoconf homepage only has a link to the
gnuorg branch and not the sfnet branch - well, life ain't easy ;-)