[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch

From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:25:57 +0000

On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 17:54, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> This patch kind of fell out of me wanting libtool to do automake-like version
> mismatch checking at runtime, and autoconf-like AC_PREREQ version-minima.
Ah, excellent, I've been thinking about this but never got as far as
actually coding anything -- now I don't have to.

> If you don't like it, I will throw my toys out of the pram :-b  Alternatively,
> you might want to convince me to split out just the version checks with eg.
No, this is kinda how I was going for as well in my head.  I'd like to
see us drop AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS too and go for:

LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([1.6 C++ disabled-shared])

Basically you get C for free, if you want support for any other
languages you have to list the language name in there.  Probably can
just steal the language name stuff out of AC_PUSH_LANG, it's friendlier
than our tag names, though tag names could be specified too I guess.

Using the old AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro would automatically include all
tags.  Could have an all-languages option too?

> I've also added an m4_pattern_forbid which means we don't need to keep using
> the lame LT_AC_ prefix to pick up unexpanded macros in configure -- we can
> migrate to a proper LT_ namespace!  :-)
I've never really been able to figure this stuff out, which are valid
prefixes and whether you're supposed to use the AC_ namespace outside of
Autoconf etc.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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