Re: 10-gary-rewrite-libtoolize.patch

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> What happens if Bruno wants to run `autoconf --trace' in
> gettextize/autopoint for the same reason as you in libtoolize.  Should
> these tools call libtoolize and aclocal too?  That can't work.

This convinced me.

> What if we introduce another tool that must run before aclocal?  In
> the current (centralized) setup only autoreconf has to be updated.
> With your patch, both autoreconf and libtoolize has to be updated.  If
> more tools copy libtoolize, all of them will have to be updated.
>
> I believe that tools which build/install aclocal.m4's sources should
> not be allowed to run `aclocal', let alone `autoconf --trace'.

Agreed.  It's a pity though, because without `autoconf --trace', we have
to go back to grepping configure.ac (and a possibly missing or out of date
aclocal.m4) for use of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and AC_LIB_LTDL, and to check for
installation directories declared with AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR and AC_CONFIG_M4_DIR 
(when that macro arrives), which is much more brittle than tracing :-(

Cheers,
        Gary.

--
  ())_.  Gary V. Vaughan    gary@(lilith.warpmail.net|gnu.org)
  ( '/   Research Scientist http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
  / )=   GNU Hacker         http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool  \'      `&
`(_~)_   Tech' Author       http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/