Re: configure options for directory variables in standards.texi

[Karl Berry]

Hi Ralf,

    I wonder whether all the indirection references ("This should normally

Those are the main things I was wondering about.

    be `foodir' but write it as `$(bardir)/foo', and with Autoconf, as
    @foodir@) should be changed to the effect that ${bardir}/foo is
    recommended as a configure substitution (because it works both in
    Makefiles and in shell/perl scripts), 

So, if automake, use $(foodir); if autoconf, use @foodir@;
otherwise, use ${bardir}/foo. ?

    and that, if the user not only uses Autoconf but also Automake, she
    can write it as $(foodir) rather than @address@hidden

Doesn't this practice contradict the recommendation of using ${...}?
And, although I knew this was possible, I've forgotten why it's
desirable to use $(...) instead of @address@hidden   I'm lost, sorry ...

    > Also, I noticed one discrepancy: the DV node talks about "lispdir", but
    > there is no --lispdir and no @lispdir@ either; at least it doesn't
    > appear in the manual.

    And Autoconf doesn't define them by default, either.

But should it?  I suppose there's no real need, since any packages that
need it have already done it themselves.  It just seems odd.

    > Also, I'm not sure about standardizing --program-prefix/suffix/transform.
    > Any thoughts on that?

    Well, apart from the fact that the executable extension should not be

I think I'll leave it alone :).

Thanks,
k