Re: gnulib-tool --local-dir question

[Simon Josefsson]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

>> Generally, I'm not in favour of such a shortcut, because
>>   - the gain is small, and it's usually better to have just one way
>>     to achieve a certain functionality rather than two (because each
>>     of the two will be less well tested than the common way),
>>   - it doesn't scale; look at a rather populated local directory in [1].
>
> I already mentioned up front that I recognized it wouldn't scale, so I
> won't add such a patch to gnulib.  Instead, I'm installing this in m4:

Hm, but couldn't gnulib-tool check for both filenames?

E.g., when including lib/foo.c test to see if there is a

$local/lib/foo.c

and then

$local/lib%foo.c

This would give projects an option of whether to use the larger
hierarchy tree style or simple flat directory with patches style.

/Simon