[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf defaults v.s. tradition
From: |
Chad Walstrom |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf defaults v.s. tradition |
Date: |
Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:27:44 -0600 |
Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> wrote:
> this sounds nice. A patch would be welcome, supposing that you are
> willing to sign the paperwork so that we can accept it.
Not necessary. I'm a GNU maintainer already. ;-)
> I'm not sure whether it should be an "enable" option. Perhaps
> --directory-layout ?
If it becomes part of the autoconf package itself, definitely. Since
it's currently (not created yet) supplementary, it should probably
retain the "--enable-FEATURE" syntax.
> And yes, your reasoning against pkg*dir variables seems to be valid,
> at least in cases when your layout option is used.
The only time a `pkg*dir' might seem useful is if you're using a
single `configure.ac' to build multiple packages, using the cache for
subdirectories. `datadir' may very well point to a root directory
where package-specific directories should be created. In that case,
having a `pkg*dir' for EVERY directory location would be useful. As
it stands, automake v1.9 is only documented to do three: `pkglibdir',
`pkgincludedir', and `pkgdatadir'.
There are probably other directory targets that might be useful, a
`docdir' (and `pkgdocdir') for example. Most Linux distributions
store package documentation (COPYRIGHT, README, contrib scripts,
examples, etc.) in `/usr/share/doc/pkgname/' directories. I'm sure
I'm not the first to make the suggestion.
Anyway, gotta run! Happy New Year!
--
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
- Re: autoconf defaults v.s. tradition,
Chad Walstrom <=