Re: Site Macro Directory

[Mark D. Roth]

On Thu May 16 05:59 2002 -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> aclocal has good intentions, poor design.

I don't really understand why everyone says that like there's nothing
we can do about it.  If the design is poor and inconvenient, let's fix
it!  That is why it's called "software", after all. :)


> there's nothing to stop - but my point: the given approach makes it less
> likely that someone will be able to easily get the macros since they're
> in a site-specific somewhere-else.  I've seen far too many crappy packages
> built with the automake scheme where I cannot find the associated macros.

I'm not sure that I agree that having a site macro directory makes it
any more likely for developers to screw things up.  However, even if
that is the case, we can have autoconf cache any macros that get used
in the aclocal.m4 file, just like aclocal does.  That way you still
get a copy of all of the necessary macros as part of the distributed
package, but it happens automatically and without the need to install
a seperate package.  Would that address this objection?


If I submit a patch to add this behavior, would it be accepted?

-- 
Mark D. Roth <address@hidden>
http://www.feep.net/~roth/