On 12/27/2013 09:36 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 26 December 2013 15:39, Stefano Lattarini > <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> But AM_PROG_AR truly does not define $RANLIB itself. Perhaps you are >> using libtool and calling AC_PROG_LIBTOOL or LT_INIT? > > > Probably. So, how about changing the sentence from "should" to "may need", > I'd rather leave the wording as it is; the "may need" is IMHO confusing, and I don't want to commit ourselves to specify in which exact situation AC_PROG_RANLIB is required and when it can be dispensed with. Since specifying AC_PROG_RANLIB even when not strictly needed turns out to be basically a no-op and not to cause any problem, I'd leave sleeping dogs lie, and change nothing.
> or is there some reason why AM_PROG_AR cannot AC_REQUIRE ranlib so that > the sentence can be deleted and no action is necessary? > AM_PROG_AR is only required for people interested in having their package buildable with Microsoft tools; so we can't expect all packages to use it, and we'd still need to mandate the use AC_PROG_RANLIB for all packages not using AM_PROG_AR. At which point, it's easier to leave documentation and semantics as they are, IMHO. Regards, Stefano