Re: [patch] improved version information

[Lars J. Aas]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:09:25PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: If you recall, there was once someone who complained about the
: behavior of a configure, and posted a configure.in of another
: package.

I don't see the relevance - please explain.

: Lars> Also, you can expect two "a2ps" programs from different packages
: Lars> to be "interchangable" in a sense.  You can not interchange
: Lars> configure from fileutils with configure from textutils - they
: Lars> are completely different programs, hence one is now named
: Lars> "fileutils configure" and the other is named "textutils
: Lars> configure".
: 
: I fail to understand why this would imply we should departure from
: conventions.  This is so unimportant that I can't understand why
: amongst all the possible solutions, the standard one should not be
: used.

The standard says the following is perfectly acceptable:

  <program name> <version>
  [<additional necessary library information>]

That's what's being used.  If your objection is that "(<package>)" no
longer is part of the configure --version output, I don't really consider
a configure script part of a program package.  They are not included with
binary distributions,  and they are not installed.  They are never in use
when you *use* a package.

Anyways, we (you and I) are probably at an impass here.  I want to hear
more opinions on this from other people before I touch the CVS repository
again, or else we might be back discussing this again tomorrow.

  Lars J