On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek scribbled: > > Try "an alternative to GNU autoconf" or "a substitute for GNU autoconf", > > to avoid confusion with Debian's alternatives system. > It's not quite a substitute, as it won't reuse autoconf's configs etc. How > about "A tool for configuring software source similar to GNU Autoconf"?
Ugh. That's awfully wordy. I don't think there's that much danger of confusion with the alternatives system, and IMO the slight risk is outweighed by how cumbersome the sentence above is. I think "an alternative to GNU autoconf" is a better choice. Daniel -- /-------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------\ | "The spork is strong with him..." -- Fluble | \------------- Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org -- Because. ------------/
