bug#12219: Could the --add-missing option be supported in AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE?

[Jeff Johnston]

On 08/17/2012 07:03 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Severity: wishlist
>
> [CC:ing bug-automake so that I won't forget about this issue]
>
> On 08/17/2012 01:04 AM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > If a configure.ac file is edited and the following added:
> >
> > LT_INIT
> > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
> I think you shouldn't add both, BTW; AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is the
> obsolescent name for LT_INIT AFAIK.

Ok, the lines above were part of a bug report for the Eclipse CDT 
autotools plug-in and I just copied
it over.

> > The make can fail when it tries to do an automake and ltmain.sh
> > is missing.
> Note that even "automake --add-missing" wouldn't help you here,
> because the ltmain.sh is provided by Libtool, not Automake, and
> installed by 'libtoolize', not by 'automake'.

The end-user ended up using autoreconf -i.  In that case, would it
make sense for maintainer mode to run autoreconf -i?

> Still, for other, similar use cases (e.g., adding AC_PROG_CC_C_O
> or AM_PROG_AR to configure.ac) your request sounds valid.
>
> > How does one set up automake to use the --add-missing parameter
> > automatically?
> Currently, one can't.
>
> > It's not recognized as an option to use with AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE,
> Well, automake could be enhanced to recognize a "add-missing" option
> in AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE too.  This would seem a good idea, but I need to
> think about it more carefully, in case there is some a subtle reason
> for the current beaviour, and against the proposed enhancement.
>
> > and the generated call to AUTOMAKE in the Makefile does not use
> > an option variable that can be set.
> >
> > Should this be used by default in the Makefile when maintainer
> > mode is enabled?
> I don't understand this question, sorry.  What do you refer to
> with "this" here?
I meant the --add-missing option when calling automake.
> > -- Jeff J.
> Thanks,
>    Stefano