[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool
From: |
Mathieu Lirzin |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:45:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
> On 31/10/2016 13:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> If Automake does not see LT_SUPPORTED_TAG, it assumes an old libtool
>> that does not know about AC_REQUIRE_AUX_FILE. However, if the program
>> does not use Libtool's configure.ac macros this check gets a
>> false positive. Do not require ltmain.sh if no Libtool macro is
>> found in configure.ac.
>>
>> Libtools that are not stone-age are already covered by LT_SUPPORTED_TAG
>> and _LT_AC_TAGCONFIG, but add AC_PROG_LIBTOOL just in case for Libtool
>> up to 1.4.
>
> This patch was never applied.
>
> Paolo
>
>> 2016-10-31 Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>
>> * bin/automake.in ($libtool_bundled): New.
>> (handle_libtool): Do not require libtool files if libtool is
>> not being bundled.
>> (scan_autoconf_traces): Set $libtool_bundled. Trace
>> AC_PROG_LIBTOOL too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> If the patch is accepted I will send an Autoconf patch to
>> preselect AC_PROG_LIBTOOL.
>>
>> Since this is a bug, it would be nice to add it at least to
>> the 1.16 branch.
>>
>> bin/automake.in | 12 +++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
I haven't tested this, and I am not a Libtool expert so I trust your
analysis.
What do you think of adding a test ensuring that ltmain.sh is not
required when no Libtool macro is found?
I have attached a updated patch with trivial formatting and comment
changes.
0001-automake-Do-not-require-ltmain.sh-for-out-of-tree-li.patch
Description: Text Data
Thanks.
--
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37