GNU bug report logs - #11239
aclocal-invocation

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 11239 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 11239 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: karl <at> freefriends.org (Karl Berry)
To: bug-automake <at> gnu.org
Subject: aclocal-invocation
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:36:42 -0700

Regarding automake.texi in 1.11.4.  The whole point of the "Individual
utilities" section is to have an entry for the actual command names.

I can understand the rationale of changing the "individual" automake to
automake-invocation, since the whole package is also named Automake.
However, there is no package named "aclocal", so can we again not have
the "-invocation" there, please?

Thanks,
karl


--- automake-1.11.4/doc/ORIG/automake.texi	2012-04-02 03:09:39.000000000 -0700
+++ automake-1.11.4/doc/automake.texi	2012-04-13 10:06:57.000000000 -0700
@@ -47,3 +47,3 @@
 @direntry
-* aclocal-invocation: (automake)aclocal Invocation.   Generating aclocal.m4.
+* aclocal: (automake)aclocal Invocation.              Generating aclocal.m4.
 * automake-invocation: (automake)automake Invocation. Generating Makefile.in.

Diff finished at Fri Apr 13 10:07:19

Message #8 received at 11239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
Cc: 11239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11239: aclocal-invocation
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:35:40 +0200

Hi Karl.

On 04/13/2012 11:36 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
> Regarding automake.texi in 1.11.4.  The whole point of the "Individual
> utilities" section is to have an entry for the actual command names.
> 
> I can understand the rationale of changing the "individual" automake to
> automake-invocation, since the whole package is also named Automake.
> However, there is no package named "aclocal", so can we again not have
> the "-invocation" there, please?
>
I'd rather have consistency here, and keep the "aclocal-invocation" name.

Also, "info aclocal" seems to do the correct thing on my system anyway,
even with the current naming:

  $ info aclocal

  File: automake-1.11.info,  Node: aclocal Invocation,  Next: ...

  6.3 Auto-generating aclocal.m4
  ==============================

  Automake includes a number of Autoconf macros that can be used in your
  package (*note Macros::); some of them are actually required by
  Automake in certain situations.  These macros must be defined in your
  `aclocal.m4'; otherwise they will not be seen by `autoconf'.

So the current naming is not even an inconvenience for the users of the
command-line info reader.

I'm thus closing this bug as "wontfix".

Regards,
  Stefano

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.