Re: [bug-gnulib] aux-dir name - result

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Salut Akim!

Akim Demaille wrote:
> build-aux is not absurd, it's just not standard to my eyes.  And
> if something else is different, then I believe that when djm
> introduced AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR, it had to be read as AC  CONFIG_AUX_DIR,
> not AC  CONFIG   AUX_DIR, i.e., I believe CONFIG is a name, not
> a verb.  So config-aux is more coherent, but longer, and with
> a dash in it.

FWIW, I'm right with you here.  I think that using build as part of build-aux
is potentially confusing in light of the use of build, host and target
elsewhere in autoconf terminology.

config-aux makes a lot more sense, and without a doubt config will be seen
more commonly by people who compile a lot of GNUish packages.

> But these are my two cents, I don't care.

I do!  The macro is parameterized in order that the project maintainer can
choose a name that they like, so I'm perfectly fine with people using whatever
directory name they see fit.  But I think the autoconf documentation should
reflect reality -- config is the commonly used name -- and perhaps suggest the
use of a preferred name, although I have my reservations about the use of
build-aux.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature