On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Daiki Ueno <u...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes:
>
>> The consequence is that in packages that use GNU libtool, such programs will
>> print "lt-prog" instead of "prog" in their usage message and other messages.
>> This will disturb
>> * the hacker who uses the programs before doing "make install",
>> * the test suite.
>
> Sorry, I'm skeptical about this. Would it be useful to test the
> getprogname functionality from outside of test-getprogname.c?
>
>> What are the possible solutions? I can see these:
>> a) Modify the 'getprogname' module to strip a leading 'lt-' prefix
>> (even on BSD and Cygwin platforms).
>> b) Create a distinct module that is like 'getprogname' but also strips the
>> 'lt-' prefix, and change the recommended idiom accordingly.
>> c) Modify libtool to store the executables as .libs/lt/prog${EXEEXT} rather
>> than .libs/lt-prog${EXEEXT}.
>
> I would vote for (b), but how about just creating a shell script wrapper
> around test-getprogname, which checks if it is a libtool wrapper or a
> native binary and somehow passes the real program name?
I have not thought about this enough, and will probably end up
discarding or reworking the patch I have just posted.
