On Monday 16 April 2001 9:46 pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:48:39PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:13 am, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >> > "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> Alexandre> On Apr 11, 2001, Aki
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:48:39PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:13 am, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> > "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Alexandre> On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Given that we want to prom
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:42 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
>
> Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
> AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR.
AC_DEFUN(AC
On Thursday 12 April 2001 11:13 am, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alexandre> On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Given that we want to promote config/
>
> Alexandre> Who's we?
>
> Well, I for one, and it was s
On Apr 12, 2001, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> auxiliary:
> Sounds perfect... ;-)
Indeed. Its only problem is that people end up naming the directory
`aux', which doesn't work on DOS.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Develo
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 09:41:00PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
: 2. Subsidiary; supplementary.
Hey, I like sub for "subsidiary".
sub - subsidiary scripts
sub-scripts / subroutines for the build system
subdir for Autoconf stuff :)
Lars J
Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to where
> > mkinstalldirs, config.guess, etc. will be instead of the top level...
>
> Yeah. What do mkinstalldirs, install-sh, missing, depcomp, ylwrap,
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to where
> mkinstalldirs, config.guess, etc. will be instead of the top level...
Yeah. What do mkinstalldirs, install-sh, missing, depcomp, ylwrap,
etc have to do with config? They'r
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
> >>
> >> Agreed. I still like A
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
> >>
> >> Agreed. I still like A
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
>>
>> Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
>> AC_CONFI
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
>
> Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
> AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR.
>
I do too. Akim has already given exa
On Apr 12, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> aux means nothing and is not portable. auxdir is puke puke puke
Agreed. I still like AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR better than
AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR or AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given that we want to promote config/
Alexandre> Who's we?
Well, I for one, and it was something that arose a certain of times.
I do believe Gary too is one o
On Apr 11, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that we want to promote config/
Who's we? I certainly don't. I don't care how people name their
support directories. I myself work on a number of projects that use
different conventions. This is not a problem, since this is al
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Akim Demaille writes:
>> Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
>> point of view, if we take the full picture into account.
Peter> If you were operating in a green field, this would be a valid
Peter>
Akim Demaille writes:
> Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
> point of view, if we take the full picture into account.
If you were operating in a green field, this would be a valid discussion,
but it seems rather silly to discuss a name change for the exclusive
rea
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Given that we want to promote config/, let's not invent yet
Akim> another name. Uniformity is one of the best service we can
Akim> offer to our users (maintainers). That's why I'd agree with
Akim> SUPDIR _if_ we promote sup/. But
> "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" seem
On Apr 10, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. I set the Reply-To that way to help the blind not add my email
> address back into the distribution.
`Mail-Copies-To: never' would presumably have a similar effect.
Except that not all mailers respect this.
--
Alexandre Oliva
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2001, "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> 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, A
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > PS/ I would like to know why sometimes we end up with ``Earnie Boyd
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'' in the CC.
>
> That's from Earnie's Reply-To:
>
Right. I set the Reply-To that way to help the blind not a
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS/ I would like to know why sometimes we end up with ``Earnie Boyd
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'' in the CC.
That's from Earnie's Reply-To:
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer
On Apr 10, 2001, "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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" s
> 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.
>
And the original point was also o be consi
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.
Lars J
| On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Alexandre> On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >>> lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
| >>> The SUP would be for eith
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
>>> The SUP would be for either SUPplem
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
>> The SUP would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I
>> obtained from the definition of
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR.
>> The SUP would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I
>> obtained from the definition of
On Apr 6, 2001, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lobby a name change from AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR to AC_CONFIG_SUPDIR. The SUP
> would be for either SUPplementary or SUPport which I obtained from the
> definition of auxiliary.
I like it. But now for 2.50.
BTW, Akim, may I go ahead and bran
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:45:02PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
:
: | 1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
: |wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
: |for not setting one up?
:
: The only real question is the name of tha
"Lars J. Aas" wrote:
>
> 1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
>wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
>for not setting one up?
>
Don't know.
> 2) We ought to unify the way these macros are named:
>
>AC_CONFIG_AUX_
| 1) I've become quite a fan of using the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR macro, and I
|wouldn't mind if one was set up in Autoconf too. Are there good reasons
|for not setting one up?
The only real question is the name of that directory. I vote for config/.
| 2) We ought to unify the way these mac
34 matches
Mail list logo
