Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:42:00PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:30:35PM CEST: > > > >>This patch continues to support --with{,out}-pic[={yes,no,both}, but > >>only advertises the more compliant --enable-pic in the calling > >>configure --help text.
Since the naming was unfortunate, and only documented in the test suite documentation, I think it's OK to change from --with to --enable. However, I'd like to test that it works before I approve. :) > http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/arch/[EMAIL > PROTECTED]/libtool--gary--1.0--patch-32?cmd=view_patches First bug present in HEAD: the old macro was apparently named AC_LIBTOOL_PICMODE, not AC_LIBTOOL_PIC_MODE. Please also fix that (2 instances) although it's orthogonal, thank you. Then, NEWS should get an entry (since with-pic was mentioned there, too). Also, tests/demo-{pic,nopic}.test need updates. Third, isn't the logic the other way round: instead of | @item pic-only | Change the default behaviour for @command{libtool} to try to use only | @sc{pic} objects. The user may still override this default by specifying | [EMAIL PROTECTED] to @command{configure}. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] to @command{configure}. shouldn't it be | @item pic-only | Change the default behaviour for @command{libtool} to try to use only | @sc{pic} objects. The user may still override this default by specifying | [EMAIL PROTECTED] to @command{configure}. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] to @command{configure}. Fourth, the entry no-pic (a few lines below that) would need a similar update, too, I believe. :) Fifth, this can only be tested comprehensively (including the old macro naming) if the ltoptions bug I just described is fixed. ;-> Cheers, Ralf