GNU bug report logs - #13524
Improving user experience for non-recursive builds

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>
To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>, 13524 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "automake-patches <at> gnu.org" <automake-patches <at> gnu.org>, Miles Bader <miles <at> gnu.org>
Subject: bug#13524: Improving user experience for non-recursive builds
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:06:11 +0100

On 2013-02-04 14:43, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 01:04 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> I {{think}} this one will be the easiest on us of all.

BTW, that was a mix of "on us all" and "on all of us", if
anyone didn't notice...

>>
> I tend to agree (but see Peter Johansson's proposal to use
> {AM_RELDIR} instead; what do you think about it?)

Well, I had @am_reldir@ in my original patch, so obviously I'm
not totally against the am_ prefix, but I did think it was too
long. You didn't really say in what way using @ was bad? This
might be the time to revisit that, so that we can come full
circle on this issue? :-) But seriously, why would it be bad
to use @ for something that is not going to be seen by
config.status anyway? Because grepping the source becomes
'difficult'? Trouble documenting? Users expecting to be able
to AC_SUBST? What?

You also suggested %percent% way back when but didn't like it.
How bad was that? What about §reldir§ (not ascii, so I guess
not) or [reldir]? Are square brackets legit in a Makefile for
anything?

If we do go with the prefix, do we really want to advertice
so obviously? I mean, {AM_D}, come on... :-)

I don't really care, just pick something that works. And stick
to it.

Cheers,
Peter

Previous Next

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