Re: [PATCH] New language support interface

[Albert Chin]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:07:46PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 04:30:55AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 03:51, Albert Chin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:20:09PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > > This removes the AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS macro in favour of a set of LT_INIT
> > > > options and a new LT_LANG macro to select language support.
> > > > 
> > > > The three LT_INIT options are:
> > > > 
> > > >         no-lang         No language support other than C.
> > > >         all-lang        All supported languages
> > > >         auto-lang       Automatically detect required support
> > > 
> > > Ick. What developer using libtool does _not_ know what languages they
> > > need. Is there every a case where "auto-lang" would not be used?  Why
> > > would a C-based project ever want a non-C-based tag?
> >
> > You're also assuming here that their entire build system will be managed
> > by the same configure.ac file; many projects have a lay out something
> > like:
> > 
> >     project-1.0/configure.ac
> >     project-1.0/ltmain.sh
> >     project-1.0/libtool
> >     project-1.0/bindings/cxx/configure.ac
> >     project-1.0/bindings/f77/configure.ac
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > We therefore need to supply LT_LANG for these kinds of people.
> 
> Ok, then I'm in favor of LT_LANG([language tag as defined by
> autoconf]) but against the proposed new options to LT_INIT. If there
> is no LT_LANG, language tags should be inferred by configure.ac, else
> defined explicitly by LT_LANG. This still leaves the libtool bootstrap
> issue unsolved but I say create a private macro (_LT_xxx) to solve the
> bootstrap issue.

Anyone agree with this? Or should this patch be committed as-is?

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)