[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] (null_AM_MAKEFLAGS, built_programs): remove unused

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (null_AM_MAKEFLAGS, built_programs): remove unused definitions
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:29:52 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28)

Hi Jim,

* Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:48:21AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Adding LIBTOOL here is wrong; you meant LIBTOOLIZE.
> I've removed it.
> I don't see anything except bootstrap that runs $(LIBTOOLIZE).  Do you?

No, adding LIBTOOLIZE should be fine.

> > There are several packages that would break, or at least have a less
> > effective distcheck with this.  For example, Libtool uses Autoconf and
> > Automake tools in its new testsuite.  Lots of packages build info files
> > in the build tree only, or build HTML with makeinfo.
> Sure.  This is policy.

Well, this is GNU policy, or maybe gnulib policy.  I was merely
referring to the prospect of adding this to Automake, rather than
keeping it in gnulib: lots of Automake users do not want to adhere
to strict GNU standards; and when they do not choose the 'gnu' or
'gnits' Automake strictness settings, they shouldn't need to adhere.

> That's why the variable is now overridable.

Yes. ?= is GNU make-specific though.  (Again, this is all fine for, but not for Automake, which so far aims for portable make.)


reply via email to

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