Re: New auxiliary archive script

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2010-08-09 21:39 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> * Andrew W. Nosenko wrote on Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 02:02:09PM CEST:
> > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 09:03, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > Darn, we need another name: 'archive' is likely too common when automake
> > > is going to put all files with that name in the distribution of each
> > > package using Automake.  No need to send another patch, but any other
> > > good suggestions that fit in with the existing scripts?
>
> > > Suggestions appreciated.
> >
> > am-archive ?
> > am-archive-helper ?
>
> archive-helper is not bad, but a bit long.  I don't like the 'am-'
> prefixes much for the name, the script doesn't necessarily have to
> have close ties to Automake.
>
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:40:03AM CEST:
> > That's no different to the situation with 'compile'.  I think 'archive'
> > is a perfectly good name as it is.
>
> Well, the difference in situation is that 'compile' was introduced 11
> years ago, when breaking compatibility was frequent; and that 'archive'
> is both a verb and a noun, and being used as, well, a name for an
> archive of stuff by people.  Cf. gettext, for example.
>
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 06:10:54PM CEST:
> > I suggested arwrap, like ylwrap, but that message seems stuck somewhere...
>
> Yes.  I hope that the mails have all come through by now since the list
> server downtime.
>
> > ar-lib is also fine by me.
>
> Good.  I have an ever so slight preference of that over arwrap, simply
> because I cannot pronounce the latter.  And we can re-interpret ar-lib
> from "archive wrapper for LIB" to "archiver for libraries" if that helps
> making it more general.  ;-)

'wrappar' did cross my mind, but that just looks like a funny accent :-)

> So, I'm picking the script addition part from your commit, adding it to
> the msvc branch and merging to master for now:

Cool, thanks!

> > +2010-08-06  Peter Rosin<address@hidden>
> > +
> > +       Add new auxiliary 'archive' script, wrapping Microsoft lib.
> > +       * lib/archive: New auxiliary script.
> > +       * lib/Makefile.am: Add above.
>
> > +       * tests/archive.test: New test.
> > +       * tests/Makefile.am: Add above.
> > +       * automake.in (@common_files): Distribute the 'archive' script.
> > +       * doc/automake.texi (Auxiliary Programs): Mention the new
> > +       'archive' script.
> > +       (Optional): Mention 'archive' in AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR.
>
> omitting the doc parts that mention AM_PROG_AR, and rewriting this:
>
> > +       * NEWS: Update.
>
> to be as below.
>
> Further I'm fixing the archive and the compile script to use ! not ^ for
> shell pattern negation, and using $me also in the --help output.

I tested with $me in the --help output but didn't get it to work so I
removed it. But your version works. Sigh...

BTW, why is ! better than ^ here? Just curious.

> Should there be a verbose/debug mode in which the scripts print the
> command(s) that they invoke; or even do this by default?  This could
> help debug user failures in the future.

Any extra output from "ar-lib lib t foo.lib" would break some uses,
unless it was on stderr of course. Other actions are less critical,
but you can always "bash -x" it, the script is smallish and output
isn't hard to parse. But a debug mode would be nice all the same...

> Wrt. the AM_PROG_AR implementation, __oline__ is a real nono, as it
> causes spurious diffs in generated configure scripts.  I'll propose
> an updated version.

Oh, didn't know that. I look forward to it, since I reused some of the
code for the @FILE feature check for archivers needed in libtool.

Cheers,
Peter