[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoreconf vs. libtoolize when upgrading to libtool 2.2
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: autoreconf vs. libtoolize when upgrading to libtool 2.2 |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:15:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi Scott, and sorry for the delay,
* Scott James Remnant wrote on Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:21:25AM CEST:
>
> We've switched the default version of Libtool in our development version
> to 2.2, and are doing such migrations as are necessary to permit this.
Great. How come you're not going straight for 2.2.4?
> In the progress, we've encountered an interesting difference between the
> behaviour of autoreconf and libtoolize that leaves you with a broken
> build system and no warning.
> This means if you upgrade libtool, and run "autoreconf", you end up with
> the old 1.5 ltmain.sh and the newer 2.2 autoconf macros. This obviously
> breaks.
Yep. :-/
Note that it matters for libtoolize whether AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR is set
(it will not install the *.m4 files without it).
> I humbly suggest the following fixes:
>
> - libtoolize should not install files unless --install is given
What should libtoolize then do if --install is not given, and it's run
on the tree for the first time?
> - but should update any that are already installed
>
> - thus, if libtoolize supports --install, autoreconf may freely call
> libtoolize when not given, and add the argument when given.
Of course autoreconf would have to check for libtoolize being newer than
2.2.4 or so.
> Assuming both maintainer groups are ok with this, I'm happy to cook up
> some patches. I'm also happy to hear alternate suggestions?
I don't see how we get out of it easily without breaking backward
compatibility.
Cheers,
Ralf