[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why do I need both AC_INIT and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE??? (fwd)
From: |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz |
Subject: |
Re: Why do I need both AC_INIT and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE??? (fwd) |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:37:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Eric,
>>> "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <address@hidden> writes:
Eric> Here's a patch to clarify the situation. I've refrained from
Eric> re-line-wrapping, to make the diff more readable (a little
Eric> more, anyway; there's a fair bit of shuffling things about).
Eric> I would have updated the "GNU Hello" example to 2.1.1 myself, but
Eric> there's a lot of cryptic goo in its configure.ac, and I wasn't
Eric> sure how much should be stripped out for clarity, vs. left in for
Eric> pedantry :-)
Each time I see this section in the manual, I think it would be
better replaced by our own tutorial.
Eric> 2003-04-08 Eric Siegerman <address@hidden>
Eric> * automake.texi (Public macros): Clarify that the new
Eric> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE variant is preferred, and the old one
Eric> deprecated.
Eric> Copy-edit the rest of the AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE item.
Eric> (Hello): Caution that the example uses the deprecated
Eric> AC_INIT/AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE syntax, and xref to the discussion.
Thanks a lot, I've checked it in on HEAD and branch-1-7.
BTW, bug-automake@ is a deprecated interface to submit
patches, automake-patches@ is the modern one... :)
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz