} Would something like "2006 December 18" be any better?
Not really. I've never seen that date format anywhere, where the
month is spelled out but the day comes after the month. Probably this
is because there's no ambiguity, given that the month is spelled out.
I'd just keep this as it was before: "18 Dec 2006".
} > This seems like a nice simplification. Any cost to making this
} > change?
}
} Just the effort in renaming them.
OK, it seems like there's consensus to consider this one later, then.
} 1. Lets move the library versions up near the package versions,
} 'cause those two bits are closely related.
Yeah, I agree with that.
} +ac_pcre_utf8=maybe # default is "no"
Maybe call it 'unset' rather than maybe? Or is 'maybe' standard?
Anyway, doesn't really matter to me.
Everything else you say sounds very reasonable to me!
craig
