configure.in vs. configure.ac

[Karl Berry]

    [Autoconf is deprecating the name 'configure.in']

    rms> ... its configure.in file ...

See how prevalent the configure.in name is in people's minds, let alone
software?  I hope you will reconsider your decision to "deprecate" it.

I still see many software packages, GNU and especially non-GNU, which
use configure.in.  What's the advantage to making extra work, even if
trivial, for many of the autoconf-using developers in the world?  There
must be something important or you wouldn't be doing it, but I can't
imagine what it is.

k