05/11/23 に The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> さんは書きました:
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
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:48:50 +0900 David Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
