Re: AC_INIT translates PACKAGE to lower case

[Akim Demaille]

| Am Don, 2002-01-31 um 12.09 schrieb Akim Demaille:
| > >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
| > 
| > >>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
| > Ralf> If using the new AC_INIT and AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE syntax, PACKAGE
| > Ralf> gets translated to lower case letters. - Why this change?
| > 
| > Akim> Because that's the case for most packages.
| > 
| > Tom> I think the underlying question is, why does autoconf make this
| > Tom> change at all?  
| > 
| > What change?
| <sigh> Things are going to get silly. </sigh>
| 
| * Lowercasing PACKAGE
| * Using a lowercased PACKAGE_TARNAME in "make dist"

_You_ still do not understand.

Automake names PACKAGE what Autoconf name PACKAGE_TARNAME.  In
addition, Autoconf support PACKAGE_NAME.  Because in many cases
PACKAGE_TARNAME can be computed from the PACKAGE_NAME, such a
_default_ is provided.  If you don't like it, define your value for
the TARNAME.

But again, I repeat, nothing can have changed here, since it was not
existing before.  Read again: Autoconf has two where Automake has one,
and you don't seem to see that you confuse the two Autoconf's.



| > Tom> Why not let the user write what he intends, and then just respect
| > Tom> it?  I confess I don't understand the rationale here.
| > 
| > There are two concepts here: the package name (GNU Autoconf), and the
| > package tarball name (autoconf).  There is no change at all, only
| > *new* things.
| 
| >From an automake user's point of view there are behavioral changes:
| 
| * Lowercasing PACKAGE
| * Using a lowercased PACKAGE_TARNAME in "make dist"

No, no, and *no*.

*If* you don't define the TARNAME, *then* it defaults to
lower-case-and-dash of the PACKAGE_ *NAME*!

| >From a usability point of view:
| * The old AC_INIT/AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE-API was clean, simple and straight.
| * The tricks introduced by your patch from yesterday are ugly.

What tricks?  What ugly?  You want an additional parameter to AC_INIT,
that's your point?  _This_ is what I find ugly.  Why would we need an
additional macro or parameter to essentially define a value?  But,
really, if you prefer, I can add a fourth parameter:

AC_INIT(GNU Foo Bar, 1.0, address@hidden, GnuFooBar)