Re: GNU Autoconf test version 2.59d available

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Ralf,

* Ralf Corsepius wrote on Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:44:00AM CEST:
> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 23:15 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > GNU Autoconf test version 2.59d is now available.
> > 
> > This is a beta release, intended to be largely identical to 2.60,
> > to be released very soon, if no unexpected issues turn up.  So test it
> > now, use it with your code, and report any remaining issues, please!  
> > 
> > The important changes since 2.59c are listed below, but two changes
> > introduced earlier, in version 2.59c, require special attention:
> > 
> > * Some directory variables have been added, and others adjusted to
> >   changes in the GNU Coding Standards.  If your package expands
> >   '$datadir', '$infodir', or '$mandir' anywhere, you need to check your
> >   package, and possibly adjust it accordingly.  The URL to the older
> >   NEWS entries below, and the FAQ node 'Defining Directories' in the
> >   manual have more information.
> Hmm, I can't find this helpful, because

What exactly can you not find helpful?  What are you referring to here?

> a) Makefiles are not autoconf's business.

We haven't changed much since 2.59c wrt. makefiles.  If you are using
Automake, the changed directory variables (assuming you are referring to
them) will be picked up automatically.  If you are using hand-written
Makefile.in's, config.status will warn you for files you have not
adjusted.

> b) Over the years, a tremendous amount of effort had been invested into
> non-gmake VPATH support in automake. If something has crept into
> automake that makes gmake necessary for VPATH-builds, I'd call this an
> automake regression.

Nothing has changed here or crept in, except gained knowledge: things
can go horribly wrong even without any Automake regression:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00033.html

> I recommend to reconsider this change.

Which change?  We intend to suggest to end-users to use GNU make for
VPATH builds; we should suggest to developers to write Makefile.am for
portable make, however.  Would you agree with that?

Cheers,
Ralf