[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AC_DEFINE questions

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: AC_DEFINE questions
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:51:45 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Guido Draheim wrote:

Is there a nice way to solve this problem?


it's an old problem of library makers, search the autoconf ML archive
for references. Basic point: do not install config.h, and if you don't
want to create your own, then the above macro might be
of help to you to make one up.

I'll sound off [yet again] with my usual objection:

I see no reason why there can't be a generalized header file generator in
autoconf.  i.e., one that *is* suitable for installing.  There's already
heavy machinery in autoconf to generate .h files (e.g.: not overwriting it
if it stayed the same between configure runs, switching between #define
and #undef, etc.).

For those of us who need to make publicly-installable header files, why
can't we use the same mechanisms instead of having to roll our own?

AC_CREATE_PREFIX_CONFIG_H is not an option for me.

objection refused. The autoconf at its heart is a macro package, simple as
that, no heavy machinery - the nifty functionality comes from the wealth
of macros bundled along, along with diverting to files like config.status
and config.h - so, what's wrong with taking the same mechanisms, and
what's wrong with using yet another macro to go along with those bundled?

btw, you say "I see no reason why there can't be", let me respond to that
saying "show me that it actually can". You just say "I want", other will
say "I did not need it so far, and what's existing, is sufficient". The
world of opensource is an iterative process, so may be you want to show
that it beneficial and that it can be done and that it integrates well
into the existing project.

your turn, ... and don't dare to say again something close to "I want"
and  "You are idiots if you dont' give it to me". Because that's what
I associated with your text, and I do hope that I was severly wrong that.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]