Re: autoconf auxdir

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <address@hidden> writes:

>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 11:39:19AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: :
>> How about AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR?
>> 
>> AC_CONFIG_SCRIPT_DIR, AC_CONFIG_EXTRA_DIR, AC_CONFIG_STUFF_DIR,
>> AC_CONFIG_LIB_DIR, AC_CONFIG_CONF_DIR...  "CONFIG_CONFIG" seems a
>> bit strange.
>> 
Tim> And the original point was also o be consistent with *_SRCDIR (no
Tim> _ before DIR).

Err, that's not an argument: I can also say it is SRCDIR which is
inconsistent.

Tim> So AC_CONFIG_CFGDIR?

Let's help people, and chose a terminilogy which will help them to
follow the conventions.

In a perfect Autoconf world, we should have, by default
AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR(.), instead of the bizarre system which involves
.. and ../...

Given that we want to promote config/, let's not invent yet another
name.  Uniformity is one of the best service we can offer to our users
(maintainers).  That's why I'd agree with SUPDIR _if_ we promote
sup/.  But it makes no sense to me.

Really, I understand AC_CONFIG_CONFIG_DIR (or AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR if
we chose this scheme as standard, which would be good as it matches
$datadir and the like) doesn't look beautiful by itself.  But that's
only part of the picture.

Some people use etc/.  I don't like it, but if we promote etc/, then
let's call it AC_CONFIG_ETCDIR etc.

Really, AC_CONFIG_CONFIGDIR seems the best candidate from the user
point of view, if we take the full picture into account.