On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > > >>> "Albert" == Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > [...] > > > > Albert> I don't have a problem requiring AC_PROG_CXX, AC_PROG_F77, or > > Albert> AM_PROG_GCJ before AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Anyone see this as a problem? > > > > As a user I wouldn't care about this little inconvenience if it > > allows Libtool not to bloat my configure with useless checks. > > > > However, requiring this will break thousands of configure.ac. I > > expect most of them to run AC_INIT, AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, > > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL early, and then go on with other checks such as > > language checks. > > This is true. It may be very inconvenient for some packages to change > the ordering. > > > Maybe this could be changed as follows: > > It is generally not a good approach to base a design on side-effects > or assumptions. Up to now, adding AC_PROG_LIBTOOL to a configure.ac > file has been sufficient to configure libtool, regardless of whether > libtool is stand-alone or embedded. This behavior should not be > altered. > > I believe that a much better solution is to add a AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS (or > AC_LIBTOOL_LANGUAGES) macro which can be used like > > AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([c c++]) > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
This means we'd have to get rid of --with-tags. As it's not documented, I'm for this. If someone specifies AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS, and say C++ isn't specified, I don't want AC_PROG_CXX dragged in. I'll try and code this up. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
