>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: :
>> How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
>>
>> AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
>> AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR... "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a
>> bit strange.
>>
Tim> And the original point was also o be consistent with *_SRCDIR (no
Tim> _ before DIR).
Err, that's not an argument: I can also say it is SRCDIR which is
inconsistent.
Tim> So AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR?
Let's help people, and chose a terminilogy which will help them to
follow the conventions.
In a perfect Autoconf world, we should have, by default
AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR(.), instead of the bizarre system which involves
.. and ../...
Given that we want to promote config/, let's not invent yet another
name. Uniformity is one of the best service we can offer to our users
(maintainers). That's why I'd agree with SUPDIR _if_ we promote
sup/. But it makes no sense to me.
Really, I understand AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR (or AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR if
we chose this scheme as standard, which would be good as it matches
$datadir and the like) doesn't look beautiful by itself. But that's
only part of the picture.
Some people use etc/. I don't like it, but if we promote etc/, then
let's call it AC_CONFIG_ETCDIR etc.
Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
point of view, if we take the full picture into account.
