[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: configure options for directory variables in standards.texi

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: configure options for directory variables in standards.texi
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:14:24 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Hello Karl,

* Karl Berry wrote on Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:51:36AM CET:
> I'd like to ask rms to approve having all the configure options that set
> the directory variables (prefix, bindir, ...) in standards.texi.  So
> that people who don't use autoconf know that they need to be implemented.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

> Specifically, in the Configuration node, I'm thinking of proposing this
> text in the area where it's talking about options:
>   In addition, the @samp{configure} script should take options
>   corresponding to most of the standard directory variables
>   (@pxref{Directory Variables}).  Here is the list:
>   @example
>   --prefix --exec-prefix --bindir --sbindir --libexecdir --sysconfdir
>   --sharedstatedir --localstatedir --libdir --includedir --oldincludedir
>   --datarootdir --datadir --infodir --localedir --mandir --docdir
>   --htmldir --dvidir --pdfdir --psdir
>   @end example
> (Well, I'll eventually sort the list differently, but never mind.)
> Does this seem sensible?

I think so.

> Any suggestions?  Also, could anyone
> interested please take a look at the Directory Variables node and
> mention anything that should be updated there?

I wonder whether all the indirection references ("This should normally
be `foodir' but write it as `$(bardir)/foo', and with Autoconf, as
@foodir@) should be changed to the effect that ${bardir}/foo is
recommended as a configure substitution (because it works both in
Makefiles and in shell/perl scripts), and that, if the user not only
uses Autoconf but also Automake, she can write it as $(foodir) rather
than @address@hidden

> Also, I noticed one discrepancy: the DV node talks about "lispdir", but
> there is no --lispdir and no @lispdir@ either; at least it doesn't
> appear in the manual.

And Autoconf doesn't define them by default, either.

> Also, I'm not sure about standardizing --program-prefix/suffix/transform.
> Any thoughts on that?

Well, apart from the fact that the executable extension should not be
part of the name-to-be-transformed, there is the manpage issue
(you have a manpath program, and manpath.1 and manpath.5 manual pages;
which file names should be transformed, and what can the developer do
about the contents and them referring to each other?).


reply via email to

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