[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: autoconf defaults v.s. tradition

From: Chad Walstrom
Subject: Re: autoconf defaults v.s. tradition
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:27:44 -0600

Stepan Kasal <address@hidden>  wrote:
> this sounds nice.  A patch would be welcome, supposing that you are
> willing to sign the paperwork so that we can accept it.

Not necessary.  I'm a GNU maintainer already. ;-)

> I'm not sure whether it should be an "enable" option.  Perhaps
> --directory-layout ?

If it becomes part of the autoconf package itself, definitely.  Since
it's currently (not created yet) supplementary, it should probably
retain the "--enable-FEATURE" syntax.

> And yes, your reasoning against pkg*dir variables seems to be valid,
> at least in cases when your layout option is used.

The only time a `pkg*dir' might seem useful is if you're using a
single `' to build multiple packages, using the cache for
subdirectories.  `datadir' may very well point to a root directory
where package-specific directories should be created.  In that case,
having a `pkg*dir' for EVERY directory location would be useful.  As
it stands, automake v1.9 is only documented to do three: `pkglibdir',
`pkgincludedir', and `pkgdatadir'.

There are probably other directory targets that might be useful, a
`docdir' (and `pkgdocdir') for example.  Most Linux distributions
store package documentation (COPYRIGHT, README, contrib scripts,
examples, etc.) in `/usr/share/doc/pkgname/' directories.  I'm sure
I'm not the first to make the suggestion.

Anyway, gotta run!  Happy New Year!
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> 
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]