[debbugs-tracker] bug#9026: closed (Supporting $ACLOCAL_PATH?)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:10:05 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [PATCH] aclocal: handle ACLOCAL_PATH environment variable
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #9026,
regarding Supporting $ACLOCAL_PATH?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
9026: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9026
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Supporting $ACLOCAL_PATH?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:49:35 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.110017 (No Gnus v0.17) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On an FHS-style system, all macros are picked up from
> /usr/share/aclocal.  Conversely, on a Stow/Nix-style installation,
> macros are to be found in /foo/automake/share/aclocal,
> /bar/guile/share/aclocal, /baz/pkg-config/share/aclocal, etc.
>
> It seems to me that the latter calls for user environment-specific
> settings, which an $ACLOCAL_PATH environment variable would handily
> support [0].
>
> WDYT?
>
> Bruno rightfully noted the importance of having a reproducible way of
> producing tarballs, and user-specific environment settings appear to go
> counter this goal.  However, there will always be a need for this kind
> of setting on Stow/Nix-style systems, AFAICS.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>
> [0] In fact Nixpkgs/NixOS has a wrapper around ‘aclocal’ that does
>     exactly this (see
>     
> <https://svn.nixos.org/repos/nix/nixpkgs/trunk/pkgs/development/tools/misc/automake/builder.sh>.)
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [PATCH] aclocal: handle ACLOCAL_PATH environment variable
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:10:05 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; )
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > We definitely want to clean this all up in 1.12 -- code, documentation and
> > > testsuite as well.
> > >  
> > For the moment, I'd like to push this follow-up patch to maint as well,
> > to "smooth out" the transition a bit.  I will push this patch and the
> > earlier one this evening if there is no objection.
> > 
> > Regards,
> >   Stefano
> > 
> All the relevant patches having been applied and pushed, I'm now finally
> closing this bug report.
>
> Thanks to all the involved people for their help and contributions.
>
> Regards,
>   Stefano
>
>
> --- End Message ---