[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bootstrap vs. autogen.sh
From: |
Rik |
Subject: |
Re: bootstrap vs. autogen.sh |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:55:35 -0700 |
On 09/18/2012 12:02 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 14-Sep-2012, Rik wrote:
>
> | We might consider renaming the autogen.sh script to bootstrap. According to
> | the GNU Automake manual, bootstrap is preferred these days although plenty
> of
> | projects are still using the old name.
>
> Our autogen.sh calls the gnulib bootstrap script. Will there be
> confusion if we have a top-level bootstrap script and a
> build-aux/bootstrap script?
I wouldn't necessarily think so. People are much more likely to encounter
bootstrap at the top-level then to go searching in build-aux and find that
one. And we do have repeating names such as the operators/ directories in
libinterp and in liboctave. It is understood that they are different
because they are in different places in the hierarchy. In that sense I
don't think people would be confused by having two bootstraps. Another
option, since we manually update the bootstrap script in build-aux, would
be to rename it to something explicit such as bootstrap_gnulib. Our
bootstrap script would then call bootstrap_gnulib and it would be quite
clear what is happening.
> I don't think we can use the gnulib
> bootstrap script by itself since our autogen.sh does more than the
> gnulib bootstrap script alone.
I agree. We need to keep our script in addition to the gnulib one.
--Rik