Re: bootstrap vs. autogen.sh

[John W. Eaton]

On 18-Sep-2012, Rik wrote:

| 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.

OK, I have no problem with renaming autogen.sh to bootstrap.

jwe