[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch
From: |
Gary V . Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:40:03 +0000 |
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
- Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, (continued)
Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch, Gary V . Vaughan, 2004/02/03