Am Don, 2002-01-31 um 17.27 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Automake names PACKAGE what Autoconf name PACKAGE_TARNAME. In addition, > > Autoconf support PACKAGE_NAME. Because in many cases PACKAGE_TARNAME > > can be computed from the PACKAGE_NAME, such a _default_ is provided. If > > you don't like it, define your value for the TARNAME. > > > But again, I repeat, nothing can have changed here, since it was not > > existing before. Read again: Autoconf has two where Automake has one, > > and you don't seem to see that you confuse the two Autoconf's. > > Okay, ignore all of that.
> Why are you lowercasing the package name? > If it wasn't an arbitrary decision, then presumably there's a good reason > why the package name needs to be lowercased. What breaks if it's not? At present time, probably very little: * All existing automake-based packages will not be affected, because automake <= 1.5 requires the old AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE syntax, which prevented this issue to show, even if using autoconf >= 2.50. * All packages that apply the old autoconf <= 2.50 syntax will also not be affected, because PACKAGE and PACKAGE_TARNAME will not be available then. There remain all packages which apply autoconf and do not use automake, furthermore exploit autoconf's >= 2.50 AC_INIT(,,) and apply PACKAGE and/or PACKAGE_TAR_NAME. FWIW, until now, I haven't seen any such package, yet. On the opposite side, all automake+autoconf based packages applying mixed case package names have the potential to be be affected. Those which additionally apply gettext would almost for sure be affected. A rough estimate from grep-ing the package names of the >2000 packages of the Linux distribution I am using shows < 200 to be using mixed case package names (w/ ~140 perl-packages among them). Not all of them will be using autotools, so not many will remain here. Anyway, there still remains your first question above. Ralf
