Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch

[Scott James Remnant]

On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 17:54, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> This patch kind of fell out of me wanting libtool to do automake-like version
> mismatch checking at runtime, and autoconf-like AC_PREREQ version-minima.
> 
> If you guys like this, I'll rewrite the docs, update the test directories and
> resubmit.
> 
After applying this patch aclocal fails with:

        NONE:0: /usr/bin/m4: ERROR: EOF in string

Which makes it a bit hard to play with :(

> If you don't like it, I will throw my toys out of the pram :-b  Alternatively,
> you might want to convince me to split out just the version checks with eg.
> AC_PROG_LIBTOOL(1.5).
> 
Personally I think that the Automakeish single _INIT_ call is probably
the nicest "canonical" way of doing it, especially as it already matches
an existing add-on tool:

LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([1.6 C C++ disable-shared no-pic])

Though if we want to support LT_PREREQ, and maybe a two-args version of
LT_INIT_LIBTOOL with the tags listed as the second, we could do that. 
I'd personally learn towards "only one way to do it" though.  The single
command has the advantage of being fairly clear, and at least matches
one of the other tools already.


If you can figure out what's broken aclocal (I couldn't after a brief
stare) then I'll see if I can get the language/tag handling working. 
I'll probably do it as an _LT_LANG function that takes either a language
name or tag, and builds up a list of tags to pass to _LT_TAGS so Auto*
can trace that.

> I've also added an m4_pattern_forbid which means we don't need to keep using
> the lame LT_AC_ prefix to pick up unexpanded macros in configure -- we can
> migrate to a proper LT_ namespace!  :-)
> 
Hurrah, should we make ridding ourselves of *AC* a goal for 1.6?

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part