Re: use --enable-pic [libtool--gary--1.0--patch-32]

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Gary,

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:42:00PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:30:35PM CEST:
> >
> >>This patch continues to support --with{,out}-pic[={yes,no,both}, but
> >>only advertises the more compliant --enable-pic in the calling
> >>configure --help text.

Since the naming was unfortunate, and only documented in the test suite
documentation, I think it's OK to change from --with to --enable.
However, I'd like to test that it works before I approve.  :)

> http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/arch/address@hidden/libtool--gary--1.0--patch-32?cmd=view_patches

First bug present in HEAD: the old macro was apparently named
AC_LIBTOOL_PICMODE, not AC_LIBTOOL_PIC_MODE.  Please also fix that
(2 instances) although it's orthogonal, thank you.

Then, NEWS should get an entry (since with-pic was mentioned there,
too).  Also, tests/demo-{pic,nopic}.test need updates.

Third, isn't the logic the other way round: instead of
|  @item pic-only
|  Change the default behaviour for @command{libtool} to try to use only
|  @sc{pic} objects.  The user may still override this default by specifying
| address@hidden to @command{configure}.
| address@hidden to @command{configure}.

shouldn't it be
|  @item pic-only
|  Change the default behaviour for @command{libtool} to try to use only
|  @sc{pic} objects.  The user may still override this default by specifying
| address@hidden to @command{configure}.
| address@hidden to @command{configure}.

Fourth, the entry no-pic (a few lines below that) would need a similar
update, too, I believe.  :)

Fifth, this can only be tested comprehensively (including the old macro
naming) if the ltoptions bug I just described is fixed.  ;->

Cheers,
Ralf