Re: What is meant by, "XXX does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL"?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 08:35 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Stepan,
> 
> On Monday 10 January 2005 06:00 am, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> 
> > So it's usually enough to  write
> ....
> > Well, I'd use
> > 
> > if [some-shell-script-test]
> > then
> >   ...
> >   AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [true])
> > else
> >   ...
> >   AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [false])
> > fi
> 
> This is more-or-less exactly what is going on, except that
> the "some-shell-script-test" includes (but is not exactly
> limited to) some compile-and-link macros.  However, upon
> reading the docs some more, they explicitly state to not do
> this.  Is that overcaution in the docs?
No, it is not, IMO.

>   Should one actually
> do the following?
Yes, I think so.

I've been bitten by this issue several times and found constructs like
your example below to be the only reliable way to set up
AM_CONDITIONALs.

> > if [some-shell-script-test]
> > then
> >   ...
> >   set_XXX=true
> > else
> >   ...
> >   set_XXX=false
> > fi
> > AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [${set_XXX}])

Ralf