Hi Paul, On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Paul Eggert wrote:
> How about another idea: have a very simple bootstrap script. All it > does is fetch gnulib, and execute gnulib's more-complicated script. We've started down that road before, but for a different initial reason. The idea arises a few messages into the following thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2008-04/msg00222.html Maybe it's worth reviewing. On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 10/18/2010 08:34 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > I would prefer your "boot" script to be called "bootstrap", and rename > > the current "bootstrap" to something else, maybe "autoconfiscate" > > Yes, that would be even better. "autoconfiscate" is a bit long, though. > > How about "cobble" instead? "cobble" is a nice word, since it falls > between "bootstrap" and "make", and it has all the right connotations: > a cobbler makes (and repairs) boots, and a programmer cobbles together a hack. It's clever, but why not something more obvious like the following? bootstrap-call bootstrap-full Gnulib users will see that there are two bootstrap scripts to choose from, and they can read the documentation to understand the difference. I suspect most will want to rename the script that they select to just "bootstrap" when they copy it to their local project.
