Re: macros for rpath support

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden> Date: 26 May 2002 12:00:27
>> +0200
>> 
>> For safety, it would be good that we have two different macro
>> names.

Paul> I don't see why it's safer to have two different macro names.
Paul> I've often redefined Autoconf-supplied macros with no ill
Paul> effects, and I presume a similar situation would apply here.

Paul> It would be confusing to have two different macro names, and I'd
Paul> rather avoid the confusion if possible.  So how about if we just
Paul> keep using the names that Bruno proposed?

I just worried about seeing the Autoconf implementation being always
hidden behind the one provided in aclocal.m4.  In particular, if an
old version of Gettext ships a ``broken'' version of it, and if the
being used Autoconf has a better one, then the former will have
precedence.

I prefer seeing the Autoconf macros heavily used, since that's a
better stress test.

The present case is different from the case of bleeding edge packages
that override Autoconf macros on purpose.

I also fear that we might bring in some extension to the Autoconf
version, which will not work if the implementation is Gettext's.  I'm
not saying it will happen, I'm saying it might happen.