Eric Blake wrote:The autotools wrappers (automake 1.7.9-1, autoconf 2.59-1, and libtool 1.5b-1) all have argument parsing bugs. They are trying to parse every option known to either <autotool>-stable or <autotool>-devel, but fail in several respects.
I've been thinking for a long time of ditching the current wrappers and using something more like the linux distros do -- and sacrificing the <stdin> behavior, just like they do.
So here's the question: does anybody actually USE <stdin> with the autotools? Does ANYBODY do '<some prog that generates a configure.ac on stdout> | autoconf' ?
nope. never saw such a usage so far.
but I use a better wrapper which doesn't seperate into stable/devel.
I seperate into the wanted versions for aclocal/automake/libtool. autoconf is ok the current way.
aclocal-1.7, aclocal-1.8, aclocal-1.9 aclocal-lt-1.5.10, aclocal-lt-1.5.6, aclocal-1.9d (libtool versions) automake-1.8, automake-1.9 libtool-1.5.6, libtool-1.5.10, libtool-1.9d
older versions not yet. (automake-1.4, automake-1.7.9, aclocal-1.4)
but this is just a private hack and not for general consumption.
Depending on the response to my question above, I'll probably adopt something like this ... but we'll have a fairly long probationary period where the wrappers are in 'test' status, regardless.
If this approach is not considered satisfactory, and you really want to
maintain the wrappers to know all options of the underlying tool, I can also
prepare patches for that approach that know how to split multiple short
options and how to rearrange arguments.
Let's wait and see what develops on the "Do you use <stdin> + autotools" question. And thanks for your interest and pro-activeness. THIS is what opensource development should be like.
-- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
