Sheesh you guys!
Why don't you do real work instead of arguing about this tiny little
point. I suggest you (Alexandre) agree to let Akim change autoreconf
the way he proposed, for now. Then, later, if enough maintainers write
testimonials about how hard it is to have their package distribution
rules include all those .m4 files, *then* we can add an option to do it
your way with a single aclocal.m4 file. The problem with doing it all
now is that once we offer the functionality, even if it's only used by
a couple maintainers who don't know any better, we'll never be able to
go back to a simpler and cleaner approach. Not to mention the added
(and imho, unnecessary) complexity.
Enough, already.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi People,
|
| There is an active debate which started in autoconf-patches, and moved
| into private messages between Alexandre and I.
|
| We agreed we should have this thread public, and it is included below.
|
| The first message tries to summarize the issues, but it also includes
| my own opinion, which is not quite fair. For your information:
|
| <<-
| Akim> Alexandre, I think our debate is interesting enough to be make
| Akim> public. Would you mind if we send all this thread to autoconf@?
|
| Alexandre> Absolutely. (no, I wouldn't :-)
|
| OK, I'm sending the digest this message being included.
|
|
| Alexandre> Except for the minor issue that it starts with a message
| Alexandre> that presents the two proposals with a clear favoring of
| Alexandre> yours. But I can live with that.
|
| I'll send the digest with the <<-lines->> included as a prologue.
| ->>
[long debate...]
