Hello Stefano,
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 01:00:02AM CEST:
> While testing my recent patches, I found a nasty weakness in the
> testsuite (a real weakness this time, not a theoretical one ;-).
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
When you install Automake below some prefix, you have to take care
yourself that it finds the third-party macros that you want it to find.
Just like you have to take care that third-party tools can be found (by
way of $PATH) etc.
We cannot take this burden off the user, we can only document it better.
(Otherwise, it would be impossible to test, e.g., one of several Libtool
installations, with its separate macro files and libtoolize programs.)
Likewise, having the Automake testsuite search for third-party macros in
$prefix/share/aclocal is only done because the "make install"ed tools
would do the same: search there. If they are not found there, then we
simply don't run those tests.
"make distcheck" is very much in line with that, by intention.
> Incidentally, the same problem can also happen to a user or developer
> having working libtool and automake installations, when he tests a new
> automake version configured with ${prefix} != from the prefix of the
> pre-existing automake installation.
Yes. Documenting what she needs to do then is the right way to go.
I don't want to burden the testsuite with having to know more about the
setup details of third-party tools, or which macro files really are
needed. For example, just invoking the macros (without running
libtoolize) may not be sufficient at all. That's a flawed approach
IMVHO.
Cheers,
Ralf
