Re: [bug-gettext] AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR{,S} & ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS

[Daiki Ueno]

Pavel Raiskup <address@hidden> writes:

>   autom4te --language Autoconf-without-aclocal-m4
> --trace=AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR configure.ac
>
>   // and for the up2date autoconf (not yet released) should be used (See
>   // autoconf's manual from git)
>   autom4te --language Autoconf-without-aclocal-m4
> --trace=AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR_TRACE configure.ac
>
> Are there any problems to be dependant on autoconf because of the
> 'autom4te' utility?  There is a lot of tracing done in gettext.
> (Note that this is not a blocker.)

Well, I'm not sure :) but this 'autom4te' usage looks very helpful.  So
let's refactor using it, after installing this patch.  Even with git
autoconf, --trace=AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR still seems to print the first
macro directory (and that is what gettextize wants), so the first form
might be sufficient.

> Seems to be OK to me.  Ignoring of ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS should be ok in a case
> that AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR{,S} is specified.  Especially when this code is
> just about the sentence what is going to be suggested to gettextize's
> user.

OK, actually I couldn't find much information about the relationship
between ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS and AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR{,S} in docs, but I found:

NEWS in automake says ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS is deprecated:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/tree/NEWS#n16

libtoolize has a comment "AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS takes precedence."
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git/tree/libtoolize.in#n1814

So I concluded it could be ignored here.

> Thanks for working on this - for me: ACK for this change.  And please keep
> your radar on 'autopoint' if possible.

Thanks for the review.  I thought once the 'gettextize' patch was
finalized, it could be ported to 'autopoint' (since they shares a large
amount of code).

> Btw. I tried to test this and it seems to work - but building of gettext
> from git is quite painful :(
>   ~> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gettext/2012-12/msg00058.html

Right, but I don't have a good idea for this.  Perhaps it might be ok to
version control the contents of archive.tar.

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno