Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool

2017-10-17 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 17/10/2017 13:45, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > I haven't tested this, and I am not a Libtool expert so I trust your > analysis. > > What do you think of adding a test ensuring that ltmain.sh is not > required when no Libtool macro is found? > > I

Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool

2017-10-17 Thread Mathieu Lirzin
Hello, Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 31/10/2016 13:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> If Automake does not see LT_SUPPORTED_TAG, it assumes an old libtool >> that does not know about AC_REQUIRE_AUX_FILE. However, if the program >> does not use Libtool's configure.ac macros this check gets a >> false posi

Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool

2017-10-12 Thread Mathieu Lirzin
Hello, Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 31/10/2016 13:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> If Automake does not see LT_SUPPORTED_TAG, it assumes an old libtool >> that does not know about AC_REQUIRE_AUX_FILE. However, if the program >> does not use Libtool's configure.ac macros this check gets a >> false posi

Re: [PATCH] automake: do not require ltmain.sh for out-of-tree libtool

2017-10-12 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 31/10/2016 13:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > If Automake does not see LT_SUPPORTED_TAG, it assumes an old libtool > that does not know about AC_REQUIRE_AUX_FILE. However, if the program > does not use Libtool's configure.ac macros this check gets a > false positive. Do not require ltmain.sh if no