[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: enlightenment-devel
Subject: Re: [E-devel] configure.in / configure.ac ?
From: David Stevenson <david.35472 () gmail ! com>
Date: 2005-11-23 6:08:30
Message-ID: b84bdea40511222208le860d9g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
05/11/23 に The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <raster@rasterman.com> さんは書きました:
>
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:48:50 +0900 David Stevenson <david.35472@gmail.com>
> babbled:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was reading about Autoconf and found this:
> >
> > <quote>
> > Previous versions of Autoconf promoted the name
> > `configure.in<http://configure.in>',
> > which is somewhat ambiguous (the tool needed to process this file is not
> > described by its extension), and introduces a slight confusion with `
> > config.h.in <http://config.h.in>' and so on (for which `.in' means "to
> be
> > processed by configure"). Using `configure.ac <http://configure.ac>' is
> now
> > preferred.
> > </quote>
> >
> > (
> >
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.57/html_mono/autoconf.html
> > )
> >
> > On the other hand in the e-devel archives I found the following which
> seems
> > to suggest the opposite for "modern" autoconf versions.
> >
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=103860659115270&w=2
> >
> > I'm thinking I should follow what the autoconf manual says and use
> > configure.ac <http://configure.ac>
> > Anyone care to comment?
>
> both are correct. we simply havent gone changing them all to be called
> configure.ac - what we do have does work and it's a royal paint ot trakc
> autofoo changes/breaks every few months so we just stay frozen in time and
> we
> likes it that way :)
Perfectly acceptable to me (^_^)
Since I have no such baggage to worry about breaking, I'll roll go with the
latest GNU docs.
Thanks!
David
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">05/11/23 に <b \
class="gmail_sendername">The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler</b> <<a \
href="mailto:raster@rasterman.com">raster@rasterman.com</a>> \
さんは書きました:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px \
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Wed, 23 \
Nov 2005 08:48:50 +0900 David Stevenson <<a \
href="mailto:david.35472@gmail.com">david.35472@gmail.com</a>><br>babbled:<br><br>> \
Hi,<br>><br>> I was reading about Autoconf and found this:<br>><br> > \
<quote><br>> Previous versions of Autoconf promoted the name<br>> \
`configure.in<<a href="http://configure.in">http://configure.in</a>>',<br>> \
which is somewhat ambiguous (the tool needed to process this file is not <br>> \
described by its extension), and introduces a slight confusion with `<br>> <a \
href="http://config.h.in">config.h.in</a> <<a \
href="http://config.h.in">http://config.h.in</a>>' and so on (for which `.in' \
means "to be <br>> processed by configure"). Using `configure.ac <<a \
href="http://configure.ac">http://configure.ac</a>>' is now<br>> \
preferred.<br>> </quote><br>><br>> (<br>> <a \
href="http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.57/html_mono/autoconf.html">
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.57/html_mono/autoconf.html</a><br>> \
)<br>><br>> On the other hand in the e-devel archives I found the following \
which seems<br>> to suggest the opposite for "modern" autoconf versions. \
<br>> <a href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=1038606591 \
15270&w=2">http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=enlightenment-devel&m=103860659115270&w=2</a><br>><br>> \
I'm thinking I should follow what the autoconf manual says and use <br>> <a \
href="http://configure.ac">configure.ac</a> <<a \
href="http://configure.ac">http://configure.ac</a>><br>> Anyone care to \
comment?<br><br>both are correct. we simply havent gone changing them all to be \
called <br><a href="http://configure.ac">configure.ac</a> - what we do have does work \
and it's a royal paint ot trakc<br>autofoo changes/breaks every few months so we just \
stay frozen in time and we<br>likes it that way :)</blockquote> <div><br>
Perfectly acceptable to me (^_^)<br>
<br>
Since I have no such baggage to worry about breaking, I'll roll go with the latest \
GNU docs.<br> <br>
Thanks!<br>
David<br>
</div><br></div><br>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today
Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam
for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit:
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic