Re: [PATCH 1/2] ar-lib: new 'AM_PROG_AR' macro, triggering the 'ar-lib' script

[Peter Rosin]

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-10-20 19:37:
> On Thursday 20 October 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/tests/ar-lib6.test b/tests/ar-lib6.test
>>>> new file mode 100755
>>>> index 0000000..af3cb2e
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/tests/ar-lib6.test
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
>>>> +#! /bin/sh
>>>> +# Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>>> +#
>>>> +# Test AM_PROG_AR ordering requirements
>>>> +
>>>> +required=libtoolize
>>>> +. ./defs || Exit 1
>>>> +
>>>> +set -e
>>>> +
>>>> +cat >> configure.in << 'END'
>>>> +AC_PROG_CC
>>>> +AC_PROG_RANLIB
>>>> +m4_ifdef([LT_INIT], [LT_INIT], [AC_PROG_LIBTOOL])
>>>> +AM_PROG_AR
>>>> +END
>>>> +
>>>> +libtoolize
>>>> +$ACLOCAL
>>>> +$AUTOCONF 2>stderr || { cat stderr >&2; Exit 1; }
>>>> +cat stderr >&2
>>>> +
>>>> +$EGREP '(AC_PROG_LIBTOOL|LT_INIT).*before.*AM_PROG_AR' stderr
>>>> +
>>> I think it would be better to do two separate checks here, one
>>> for AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and one for LT_INIT.  This can be done in
>>> a follow-up patch, though, so no need to re-roll this test again.
>>
>> The problem is that older Libtools do not have LT_INIT, so the
>> test which checks LT_INIT ordering would have to be skipped in
>> that case.
>>
> Yes.  I wouldn't consider that to be a problem though, it should
> be quite easy to do (refer to test `ltinit.test' for inspiration).
> 
>> That seemed like a lot of trouble compared to an m4_ifdef.
>>
> I can do that in a follow-up patch if you prefer.  Don't consider
> it a prerequisite for an ACK on my part.

Ok, I'll leave it for now.

>> I could keep the existing test and then do another test which
>> uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL unconditionally. I assume you want to
>> guarantee coverage for AC_PROG_LIBTOOL in a world were LT_INIT
>> is the norm?
>>
> Exactly.

I renamed ar-lib6.test to ar-lib6a.test and made a sister test
ar-lib6b.test that uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL unconditionally. I remembered
to add comments to keep the two tests in sync.

Good to go with that?  Anyone want to see the final spin?

Cheers,
Peter