[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: also copy install-sh
Re: also copy install-sh
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:39:53 +0100
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 02:48:35PM CET:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:27:40AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:07:49PM CET:
> > > Would it make sense if libtoolize did not install any of these
> > > scripts when Automake is used? That way there is always only
> > > one tool installing them in a given setup.
> > Probably. But let's ask the question the other way round: What could
> > be broken if libtoolize did not install any of these?
> If Automake is used, nothing I can think of.
Might be an option. At least for branch-1-5, however, I'd rather
just back out my patch and go back to what people know. The less
surprises, the better.
We could also just mention that AC_PROG_LIBTOOL resp. LT_INIT uses
AC_PROG_INSTALL, and thus its requirements (which are documented in
Autoconf docs) have to be met, i.e., there has to be a file `install.sh'
How about that (just a doc update) instead?
> > Next question: How does libtoolize reliably detect whether Automake is
> > used (I can guess the answer, but am not certain)?
> I don't think you can do this reliably (but I don't think you have too).
> If AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is used in configure.ac or if ./Makefile.am exists it
> seems reasonable to assume that Automake is used.
> It is possible to create Automake-based packaged where none of the above
> conditions are true, but people doing that probably do not need any help to
> cope with files installed multiple times.
OK. We can maybe think about this for HEAD and maybe branch-2-0. I'd
feel happier with Gary also agreeing to what to do -- he worked most
with the bootstrap issues, I think.
> > Another one: Can we expect forward-compatibility (in the sense that
> > the newest available script will always be the best)?
> You can expecte backward compatibility (i.e. a newer install-sh should
> work where a previous install-sh used to work) on the stable branch,
> and maybe from HEAD (by this I mean that backward compatibility is not
> broken gratiously, but when we need to it occurs on HEAD -- this has
> happenned to install-sh already).
> Forward compatibility is not to be expected at all (an old install-sh
> cannot cope with the any option introduced in a later install-sh).
OK, thanks. That was what I meant to ask for.
Re: also copy install-sh, Ross Boylan, 2004/12/19
- also copy install-sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/12/19
- Re: also copy install-sh, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/12/19
- Re: also copy install-sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/12/20
- Re: also copy install-sh, Ross Boylan, 2004/12/20
- Re: also copy install-sh, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/12/20
- Re: also copy install-sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/12/21
- Re: also copy install-sh, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/12/21
- Re: also copy install-sh,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: also copy install-sh, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/12/23
- Re: also copy install-sh, Ross Boylan, 2004/12/23
- Re: also copy install-sh, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/12/24