Hi Bruno, > * Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-26 14:36:46 +0200]: > >> I updated gnulib files in clisp and threadlib.m4 was pulled in by >> gettext 0.17. >> Are you sure this is really truly necessary? > > It is necessary for packages that use > AM_GNU_GETTEXT > but it is not necessary for packages that use > AM_GNU_GETTEXT([external]) > > In the latter case, I thought that 'aclocal' will determine that the file > threadlib.m4 is not needed, not include it from aclocal.m4, and thus > "make dist" will create a tarball without this file. No?
we have AM_GNU_GETTEXT([external], [need-ngettext]) whatever that means. threadlib was pulled in. I am sure you have the clisp cvs tree somewhere - do "cvs up". You can see that I use aclocal 1.10 and autoconf 2.62. >> I thought of replacing clisp/src/execname.c (158 lines which determine >> the truename of the current executable) and discovered that to do that I, >> apparently, need the relocatable-prog-wrapper module (17 C and H files! > > Determining the truename of the current executable is not yet a supported > functionality of its own. You found some uses of this functionality in the > relocatable-prog-wrapper module, which does many more things. > > So, would you like to propose a module that determines the truename of the > current executable? This would be a new API, because neither POSIX nor > glibc have this API. yes. I think the API currently used by clisp (clisp/src/execname.c) is good enough: /* find and save the executable name from argv[0] */ int find_executable (const char * program_name); /* access the stored executable name */ char *get_executable_name (void); >> So, what is the point of gnulib again? > > The point of gnulib is to allow you to program with reference to POSIX > or the glibc documentation, using the same includes that work on glibc > platforms, and then fix a maximum of portability programs by telling > gnulib-tool to import the relevant cross-platform support. > Additionally, it provides generally useful utility functions. good - so I thought. >> Why not just distribute gnu libc with every application? > > 1) Because glibc is not ported to OSes from AIX to Windows. There was once a > port of glibc to AIX, but it became quickly unmaintained (after IBM stopped > paying for it). > 2) Because gnulib does more than glibc: It does not override the functionality > of the system that is present and works. Like two gear wheels fit together, > gnulib adapts to the shape of the system's gear wheel. the sad part is that you apparently did not notice my sarcasm. what if I said >> Why not just distribute the whole gnulib with every application? at any rate, as a gnulib user, I would like to humbly request that you pay more attention to minimization of the amount of the overridden functionality. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 8.04 (hardy) http://israelunderattack.slide.com http://pmw.org.il http://mideasttruth.com http://thereligionofpeace.com http://ffii.org Linux - find out what you've been missing while you've been rebooting Windows.