>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
adl> Otherwise, as install-strip is concerned, another idea is to:
adl> 1) not call AM_PROG_INSTALL_STRIP from AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
adl> 2) revert all `commenting' that has been done in AM_PROG_INSTALL_STRIP
adl> 3) ask the user to call AM_PROG_INSTALL_STRIP if she uses
adl> AC_CANONICAL_HOST or AC_CANONICAL_TARGET (automake can
adl> check for this, I guess).
Tom> One reason I knew it was "ok" to disable this entirely is that
Tom> packages which are set up for cross-compilation still have to do a lot
Tom> of work themselves. For instance they must search for the cross
Tom> ranlib themselves. That is, this is a general problem in autoconf
Tom> that I prefer we solve there, not in automake.
Is it an "ok" for my proposal or a "no, keep it as it is now"?
Right now, I would have to call AC_CHECK_TOOL([STRIP],[strip])
in my configure.in *before* calling AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to make
thinks work.
My package does cross-build successfully and I had no additional
work to do appart from calling AC_CANONICAL_HOST (only
install-strip fails, of course). AC_PROG_RANLIB works for
cross-compilation too (at least in CVS autoconf, I have never
used the old), and Automake does check whether this macro is
called when it needs ranlib; this is great.
Basically I'm asking the same thing for strip. Except that
since Autoconf 2.13 doesn't ship with an AC_PROG_STRIP macro
that Automake can check for, this macro would be supplied by
automake (unfortunately).
Yes, I'm asking a lot.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz