>>>>> "R" == R Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems to me that you don't know yet the changes undergone in CVS
>> Autoconf :(
R> Yes, sorry about that. The Solaris system that gives me internet
R> access does not have pserver available.
If you're extremely patient, you might want to try
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/people/akim/autoconf-2.14a.tar.gz
>> This drives me to ask you this question: if you have conflicts
>> between config.h and defs.h, it means you include them both. Then,
>> why do you need two? That's the problem. I'm not really choked by
>> the work done by autoheader here, it's kind of logical.
R> I could use a single header, but really wanted to separate
R> user-modifiable configuration definitions from ones which you can't
R> such as those for headers and libraries. I could create a static
R> header, but didn't want the distributed source to be `dirtied' so
R> that if you did a `make distclean', you would get the original
R> didtributed source with no modifications. i.e. I wanted none of
R> the original files to have to be touched.
OK, I start to understand. But it seems hard to me to cope with the
various uses of autoheader. You might be willing to do too well, and
I'm not really sure we should have autoheader be that much tunable :(
You could a special tag in the description of the `user modifiable'
(which means the most often hand modified, since config.h is meant to
be modified by hand anyway). Something like
/* USER: Set to blah blah blah. */
#undef BLAH_BLAH
BTW, I might have misunderstood your purpose, but it is not
conventional to invite the users to modify a header. You probably
want a battery of --with/--enable?
Regards,
Akim
