[+cc automake-patches]
On 11/14/2012 03:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/14/2012 07:41 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
If I understand your argument correctly, you are claiming that
AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR should _not_ trace into AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR_TRACE,
so that case (2) can be distinguished by
On 11/13/2012 11:41 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[SNIP]
(3) Packages that use more than one AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR. You argue
that this was broken to begin with.
Correct.
I agree. We don't want to support several calls to AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR,
nor calls to AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR specifying more
On 11/13/2012 01:16 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
But the old way will have to stick around for compatibility with older
packages that have not been updated to the New Way. So since we have to
keep the old way around anyway, why not just continue to use the old way
for old packages? This has
On 11/13/2012 02:35 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
(0) Packages have a simple AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([foo]) and a simple
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I foo and don't do anything weird. I think all
of us agree that this is the most common case.
Yep, and it works.
(1) Packages that use
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:35:38PM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
...
(1) Packages that use ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS to specify one or more macro
directories and do *NOT* use AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR at all. You
agreed earlier that this was a good choice for packages using
more than one macro
