Hello autoconfers. On 07/04/2012 06:55 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Eric. > > On 07/04/2012 06:42 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 07/04/2012 09:24 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> It can be done either passing several arguments to a single invocation: >>> >>> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([dir1 dir2]) >> >> I would recommend against this, >> >>> >>> or issuing more invocations: >>> >>> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([dir1]) >>> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([dir2]) >> >> and instead favor this approach only. >> >> My plan for autoconf is to implement AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS, which can be >> invoked multiple times and also takes a whitespace-separated list in a >> single call, but which will basically then call AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR once >> per unique entry (that is, AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS will be smart enough to >> filter out duplicates). >> > And also to normalize whitespace messes in usages like this, I guess: > > AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS([foo bar \ > baz > ]) > >> Tracing code should then trace _just_ AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR, which will be >> called once per directory, and where the first call is the preferred >> dumping ground for new macros. There shouldn't be a need to trace >> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS. >> > I like this design. It will allow the "tracers" like aclocal and libtool > to be dumber in their implementation, and makes it easier to have a more > consistent behaviour among them. > > So +1 from me. > > I'll keep my automake patches on hold until you have gone ahead with your > plan, to avoid introducing inconsistencies and messing up the already > suboptimal automake history even more. > > Thanks for your continuous and outstanding work, > Stefano > Any progress on this?
Regards, Stefano
