Hallo Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Now, does that mean there was never a problem w.r.t. `&&' vs. `;'?
Yes, I think it means that ; vs && was a red herring. > I don't believe they can get by without auto*. But I'd be happy to be > proven wrong. (I'd demand a test for this, though, so that it does not > break again.) > > One simple reason I don't think this can work: a package-toplevel > Makefile.in looks different from a non package-toplevel Makefile.in. > branch-1-5 creates a package-toplevel one in libltdl/, but newer Libtool > does not. We just can't use the same for both. Ouch. I had forgotten that. Okay, it is still a regression on branch-2-0 (vs top of branch-1-5) so I think I need to fix it. But it seems that the only way is to put the rules libtool uses for building libltdl in ./Makefile.am, and then creating a top-level libltdl/Makefile.in purely for libtoolize --ltdl. Hmm... I'll move the patch to HEAD, and write an Autotest case before I post, and we can decide whether to port the fix to branch-2-0 at that point. Cheers, Gary. -- Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org} Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature