GNU bug report logs - #15949
Apparently out-of-date warning

Previous Next

Full log

Message #18 received at 15949 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Reuben Thomas <rrt <at> sc3d.org>
Cc: 15949 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15949: Apparently out-of-date warning
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 23:24:36 +0100

On 12/27/2013 09:36 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 26 December 2013 15:39, Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>>
>> But AM_PROG_AR truly does not define $RANLIB itself.  Perhaps you are
>> using libtool and calling AC_PROG_LIBTOOL or LT_INIT?
> 
> 
> Probably. So, how about changing the sentence from "should" to "may need",
> 
I'd rather leave the wording as it is; the "may need" is IMHO confusing,
and I don't want to commit ourselves to specify in which exact situation
AC_PROG_RANLIB is required and when it can be dispensed with.  Since
specifying AC_PROG_RANLIB even when not strictly needed turns out to be
basically a no-op and not to cause any problem, I'd leave sleeping dogs
lie, and change nothing.

> or  is there some reason why AM_PROG_AR cannot AC_REQUIRE ranlib so that
> the sentence can be deleted and no action is necessary?
>
AM_PROG_AR is only required for people interested in having their package
buildable with Microsoft tools; so we can't expect all packages to use
it, and we'd still need to mandate the use AC_PROG_RANLIB for all packages
not using AM_PROG_AR.  At which point, it's easier to leave documentation
and semantics as they are, IMHO.

Regards,
  Stefano

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.