Re: CC=cc ./configure or ./configure CC=cc

[Karl Berry]

Hi Ralf and all,

    1) First, the order of subsections output in GCS is inconsistent between
    the DVI and the info output (this does not happen with sections as in
    the GNU make manual, but only with the section-lowering as done for the
    GCS; makeinfo bug lingering here?).

Sorry, I don't understand.  What is wrong?  Just the order in the @menu?
Puzzling.

    2) While at it, fix the text reference to say section/subsection/node
    correctly (for both GCS and the GNU make manual).

I prefer not to be pedantic about this.  I always call sections at any
level "section" (maintenance reduction), and there is nothing wrong with
saying "section" in Info output.

    3) There is a content error in the DESTDIR node: it does not work to
    specify DESTDIR at configure time, 

Ok, good.

    4) OK to apply this trivial dependency omission to gnulib?

Well, the standards documents are not built in gnulib, they come from
the gnustandards savannah project and I propagate them to gnulib.
However, if the dependency helps you in preparing such changes (which I
can see), I certainly have no objection to it.  Doesn't hurt anything.

    Does this need to go by RMS, 

Yes, this isn't just formatting/etc., which is all he's given me the
power to change on my own :).

    and if yes, is there somebody to do this for me, 

Yes, I will do that.

    +./configure CC=gcc
    address@hidden example
    +is preferable over setting them in environment variables:
    address@hidden
    +CC=gcc ./configure
    address@hidden example
    +as it helps to recreate the same configuration later with

Actually, I've never understood this move in Autoconf.  Everyone
understands setting environment variables.  Why was it necessary to
recommend (nearly require) making the settings via options instead?
Can't you just take the relevant environment settings and do exactly the
same thing in config.status (and wherever else) as if it had been an
option?  Can you explain?

Anyway, regardless, I'm sure you-all have a good reason for the move,
so, can you make a single revised patch, with Bruno's additional fixes,
for me to convey?

Thanks,
Karl