Re: LT_AC_PROG_SED

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,

Hallo Ralf!

> OK, here's another problem with this: I know we don't support
> Autoconf-2.13 any more with branch-1-5 Libtool, but we're actually not
> far away from supporting it; so close, that some ports collections ship
> with a small patch to allow to use it with 2.13, with a couple dozen
> line patch or so.  Autoconf-2.13 has neither m4_defun nor m4_require.

Really?  If we can do it so easily, I think we should integrate such a
patch.  Now that branch-1-5 is in maintenance mode, I don't think it
incurrs too much overhead.  Can you point me at an appropriate patch?
I think it would be nice to leave behind our (hopefully) last 1.5.x
release that continues to work with Autoconf 2.13.

> IMHO we should just not use this patch.  There's no real breakage if you
> drop it, so it doesn't fix a bug, right?  And when the user updates to
> Libtool-2.0, he'll still get the move to AC_PROG_SED through autoupdate.

It does fix the missing AC_SUBST bug, so I think that part has to go in.

The AC_PROG_SED vs LT_AC_PROG_SED is just candy really, so I don't think
it would be so bad to drop the rest of the patch.  However, if the only
problem is Autoconf-2.13 compatibility, I'd advocate committing as is,
and fixing the compatibility in a separate patch (which could exchange
the m4_defun for an m4_define).

What do you think?

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://blog.azazil.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://trac.azazil.net/projects/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook