[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Gary V . Vaughan
Subject: Re: RFC: 77-gary-diagnose-version-mismatch.patch
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:40:03 +0000

On Tuesday, February 3, 2004, at 09:57  pm, Scott James Remnant wrote:
So a canonical form of:

LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([C C++], [disable-shared no-pic])

I've deliberately made the tags the first argument there, as I think
people are more likely to specify tags than options.

I slightly favour the original order proposed by Albert; we're allowing
a version number so that after autoupdating and following the AC_DIAGNOSE
instructions, people can safely use LT_INIT_LIBTOOL analagously to
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE.  Reversing the order breaks that possibility.

Or perhaps split it out a little further:

LT_INIT_LIBTOOL([disable-shared no-pic])

Automake couldn't directly steal LT_LANG_SUPPORT or the first argument
though.  I'm quite determined that we should allow real language names
rather than just tags for it, just as Autoconf itself does.

I like the idea of proper language tags, but if we are going to do that it needs to be done thoroughly along with --tag option parsing. If we do it properly Automake will be able to use the traced values as --tag parameters.

I have no problem with using the 3 macro config as longhand, but I still
think it is nicer to specify additional languages as a 2nd argument to

On the other hand, unless more people vote one way or the other, you get to
choose if you implement it :-)

Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,}
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )=
Technical Author   `(_~)_

reply via email to

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