[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RM: to -f or not to -f

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: RM: to -f or not to -f
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:36:53 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.1

[adding bug-libtool, replies can drop autoconf]

On 07/29/2010 10:26 AM, Patrick Welche wrote:
> I just tried configuring libxml2 which has
>       AC_PATH_PROG(RM, rm, /bin/rm)
> in its configure.in. After running configure
>       rm: libtoolT: No such file or directory
>       Done configuring
> Probably from
>       cfgfile="${ofile}T"
>       trap "$RM \"$cfgfile\"; exit 1" 1 2 15
>       $RM "$cfgfile"
> in config.status which in turn seems to be from _LT_CONFIG in
> libtool/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4.

Thanks for the analysis.

> So, the AC_PATH_PROG(RM, rm, /bin/rm) means that libtool's RM=rm -f if
> RM wasn't defined yet doesn't happen.
> Any thoughts? (just to get rid of an harmless error message)
> (BTW, autoconf, automake, libtool and libxml2 all from today's head)

I'd also seen the same line when building libvirt, but hadn't taken the
time to figure out why; libvirt indeed does:

configure.ac:AC_PATH_PROG([RM], [rm], [/bin/rm])

(but with correct m4 quoting, compared to libxml2).

There's nothing autoconf can do about it, but it might make sense for
libtool to change something.

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]