On Aug 2, 2000, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, Alexandre!
>> There are two approaches to extracting the scripts: we may get their
>> contents into the configure script, through some macro, or try to
> This will make "configure" huge.
That's why I suggested it might try to find libtool.m4 or aclocal.m4
instead. But this will make it less safe too, since it might find the
wrong version of the file.
In general, people don't care much about the size of configure. But I
understand the concern of carrying two copies of the libtool scripts
in every package that uses it, instead of the single copy we require
today.
>> arrange for configure to find them in libtool.m4 or aclocal.m4,
>> avoiding the duplication of the scripts, but risking not finding the
>> m4 file.
> You mean that "aclocal" should put the code into aclocal.m4 because it
> finds a macro in "configure.in"?
Yep. We'd add the contents of those files to libtool.m4, and, since
aclocal only brings entire files into aclocal.m4, it would work.
> I don't know how you are going to prevent autoconf from including
> that code to "configure".
By simply not calling the macro containing the scripts. Then,
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL would look for the m4 file and extract the scripts
from it. As I wrote above, this would make it a little bit unsafe,
but it might be worth the trouble.
We could have AC_PROG_LIBTOOL to include the scripts in `configure' by
default, but provide a macro in which the developer declares the
filename that contains the files, for example, aclocal.m4 or
libtool.m4. This would be fully backward-compatible, and would allow
for people to avoid the duplication when they care about it.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
