Re: havelib's AC_LIB_HAVE_LINKFLAGS in conditionals

[Micah Cowan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Eric Blake wrote:
> I'm not sure how that works.  Yes, my understanding is that libssl is a
> gnulib client, but then it seems like you should have been asking on the
> libssl list.  I don't see wget listed in gnulib/users.txt; do we need to
> add an entry?

I doubt that libssl would have been appropriate: the m4 code wasn't
specific to libssl; it could have been any library.

> However, I am positive that gnulib-tool won't work without
> automake's Makefile.am, and very few packages are able to use gnulib
> without gnulib-tool in the current scheme of things.

Well, except that it's my impression that a lot of projects use just
pieces of gnulib: and in particular, the havelib stuff. I suspect that
wget's use of havelib probably predates the existence of gnulib-tool,
but I could be wrong about that. I honestly don't know when or how they
slurped that code in, but they're using it at any rate, and since the
code came from gnulib... :)

> Apologies if my first email sounded harsh.  On re-reading what I wrote, I
> think my tone came across more negatively than I intended.  It was not so
> much a chide of your decision to post here (after all, many of us on this
> list subscribe to multiple lists, and happily do our best to answer a
> question regardless of where it is posted, under the philosophy that open
> source replies open answers); as it was a note that for archival purposes,
> someone else having a similar autoconf problem will not think to search
> this list.

I didn't think it was harsh; but I did disagree that autoconf would be
more appropriate. I hope my response didn't seem too snippy or anything,
either (God, how it sucks not being able to include tone-of-voice in an
email). However, I'm new to the list, whereas you are certainly not, so
I'm prepared to be wrong. :)  ...but if I'm wrong, I'd like to
understand why it's a better forum, so I know how to make better choices
the next time around.

> But to bring things back to gnulib, let us know if you are interested in
> moving wget over to automake and gnulib, and if you need any help in that
> regards.

Wget will almost certainly be moving to automake. Automake isn't
perfect, and I sympathize with its original author's decision not to
move to automake; but to my mind, the benefits far outweigh the
disadvantages.

As to gnulib, I haven't looked closely enough at it to see what aspects
would be especially useful. We're probably already using a fair amount
of "protocode" that was common to GNU projects and eventually became a
part of gnulib. Obviously, portablity is important, so it mainly depends
what we run up against. :)

- --
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...
http://micah.cowan.name/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGuVNO7M8hyUobTrERCBLAAJ9VUKGtUdCWP44onzd4KWrh0xTQIQCeM9ja
BxdPLeqK2CYbjW66ZM0yBI8=
=rcn3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----