Re: To hack or not to hack
On Apr 4, 2000, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael> - automake forces me to configure libtool for every package.
Michael> I cannot use a configured libtool installed in a base
Michael> package.
> You might be able to make this work somehow, but I don't know it
> offhand.
I *think* this may work (untested):
define([AC_PROG_LIBTOOL],[
LIBTOOL='$(SHELL) (../)+libtool' # as many `../'s as needed :-)
AC_SUBST(LIBTOOL)
])
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
I think it would be nice if libtool explicitly supported this kind of
source/build-tree architecture. A macro such as
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL_FROM(../..) would do.
However, you won't be able to use `--enable-shared=pkgname' on
packages that configure libtool like this.
Michael> 2. Is there something else that I can read concerning the
Michael> overall design of these tools?
> For automake, no.
Ditto for libtool.
Michael> 3. Would it be possible for me to have someone to pester
Michael> with questions so that I don't violate some design paradigm
Michael> that would prevent my patches from becoming accepted?
> For automake, ask the list. I won't always have time to answer, but
> other people probably will.
Ditto for libtool :-)
--
Alexandre OlivaEnjoy Guaraná, see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat companyaoliva@{redhat, cygnus}.com
Free Software Developer and EvangelistCS PhD student at IC-Unicamp
oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: To hack or not to hack
Tom Tromey wrote: > > > "Michael" == Michael Bletzinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Michael> - autoheader automagically defines the PACKAGE and VERSION > Michael> variable in every config.h file making it impossible for > Michael> packages to cleanly include more than one config.h file. > > Use the (documented) 3rd arg to AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to disable this. I missed that one sorry. > Michael> 1. Do I need to sign anything to work on these tools? I > Michael> already have contribute permission from NCSA. > > If you make significant changes you have to sign paperwork for the > FSF. I think I need to do some more investigating before I do anymore patches. Multilibing is a possibility perhaps. > > Michael> 2. Is there something else that I can read concerning the > Michael> overall design of these tools? > > For automake, no. > > Michael> 3. Would it be possible for me to have someone to pester > Michael> with questions so that I don't violate some design paradigm > Michael> that would prevent my patches from becoming accepted? > > For automake, ask the list. I won't always have time to answer, but > other people probably will. Thanks for your tips Tom. Michael -- -- Michael Bletzinger Software Developer, Alliance Computational [EMAIL PROTECTED] Environment & Security 217 265 5137NCSA
automake --add-missing --copy
Using: automake (GNU automake) 1.4a I've always been annoyed that automake --add-missing --copy doesn't pass the "--copy"-option along to libtoolize, so I end up with symlinked config.guess, config.sub, ltconfig and ltmain.sh. This might be fixed already, it's an "old" (month at least) automake 1.4a I've got installed. Lars J
