Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR (fixes PR/401)

2005-04-25 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Salut Alexandre, Thanks for the feedback: Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > * LIBOBJDIR seems worthy to document from the Autoconf user perspective. > Non-automake might also benefit from this; and we should avoid using > undocumented interfaces in Automake. Okay, I've added that to the attached

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR (fixes PR/401)

2005-04-21 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Some quick comments. I'm in a hurry. And before I forget: thanks for working on this. * LIBOBJDIR seems worthy to document from the Autoconf user perspective. Non-automake might also benefit from this; and we should avoid using undocumented interfaces in Automake. * The Automake manual shoul

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR (fixes PR/401)

2005-04-20 Thread Paul Eggert
"Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2004-04-20 Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * lib/autoconf/general.m4 (_AC_LIBOBJS_NORMALIZE): Prepend each object > named in LIBOBJS and LTLIBOBJS with the $(LIBOBJDIR), as set by latest > automake. That patch looks good

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR (fixes PR/401)

2005-04-20 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Salut Alexandre, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of > AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. But you are breaking common uses of > @LIBOBJS@ while bending it the way you think it should work. Or > maybe

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-20 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Salut Alexandre! Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > Gary> --- lib/autoconf/general.m4.orig 2003-10-27 11:10:56.0 > + > Gary> +++ lib/autoconf/general.m42005-04-18 18:00:20.0 +0100 > Gary> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > Gary> # This file is part of Autoconf. -

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-18 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Hi Gary, >>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Gary> Hallo again, Gary> It turns out that the automake patch is not enough :-( Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. But you are breaking common uses of @LIBOBJS@ while bending it the way

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-18 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Paul, Paul Eggert wrote: > I like the patch from the Autoconf point of view, assuming the Automake > folks take their bit. Thanks. > One small point: > > "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>+ac_libobj_dir= >>+test "X${ac_config_libobj_dir-.}" != X. && >>+ ac_libobj_dir=`echo

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-18 Thread Paul Eggert
I like the patch from the Autoconf point of view, assuming the Automake folks take their bit. One small point: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > +ac_libobj_dir= > +test "X${ac_config_libobj_dir-.}" != X. && > + ac_libobj_dir=`echo "$ac_config_libobj_dir/" | sed 's,/*$,/,'` That w

Re: [PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-18 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hallo again, It turns out that the automake patch is not enough :-( Attached is an improved patch against automake-1.9.5 (applies to branch-1-9 and HEAD with fuzz). When applied, if configure.ac declares AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR, then automake will look in that directory for AC_LIBSOURCE declared fi

[PATCH] Support AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR

2005-04-18 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hallo! While trying to convert libtool HEAD to use a single toplevel Makefile.am, I discovered that neither branch-1-9 or HEAD of automake pay heed to the AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR declaration in configure.ac. With this patch, using a single top-level Makefile.am, Libtool can now build libltdl/libltdl