Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 09:57  pm, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> So a canonical form of:
>
> LT_PREREQ([1.6])
> LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([C C++], [disable-shared no-pic])
>
> I've deliberately made the tags the first argument there, as I think
> people are more likely to specify tags than options.

I slightly favour the original order proposed by Albert; we're allowing
a version number so that after autoupdating and following the 
AC_DIAGNOSE
instructions, people can safely use LT_INIT_LIBTOOL analagously to
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE.  Reversing the order breaks that possibility.

> Or perhaps split it out a little further:
>
> LT_PREREQ([1.6])
> LT_LANG_SUPPORT([C C++])
> LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([disable-shared no-pic])
>
> Automake couldn't directly steal LT_LANG_SUPPORT or the first argument
> though.  I'm quite determined that we should allow real language names
> rather than just tags for it, just as Autoconf itself does.

I like the idea of proper language tags, but if we are going to do that 
it
needs to be done thoroughly along with --tag option parsing.  If we do 
it
properly Automake will be able to use the traced values as --tag 
parameters.

I have no problem with using the 3 macro config as longhand, but I still
think it is nicer to specify additional languages as a 2nd argument to
LT_INIT_LIBTOOL.

On the other hand, unless more people vote one way or the other, you 
get to
choose if you implement it :-)

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook