Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-13 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Salut Alexandre! Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: "BH" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > BH> Also, do you have an idea about the release date of automake-1.10? > > CVS Automake depends on CVS Autoconf. (No it doesn't depend on > CVS Libtool nor CVS M4.) So it could be released as so

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-13 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "BH" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: BH> Hi Jim, >> The problem you describe was more of an automake limitation, and >> it has been resolved by automake's addition of AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. BH> Interesting. But AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR is documented just between BH> AC_CONFIG_AUX_

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-03 Thread Simon Josefsson
"Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > automake-1.10 is waiting on m4-2.0 is waiting on libtool-2.0 is due out > real soon now. So if I install these tools from CVS, will gnulib-tool handle AC_LIBSOURCES in multiple directories? Has anyone tried it? To make the release dependency tree

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-02 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Jim Meyering wrote: Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem you describe was more of an automake limitation, and it has been resolved by automake's addition of AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. Interesting. But AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR is documented just between AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR and AC_CONFIG_HE

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-02 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Jim, > The problem you describe was more of an automake limitation, and > it has been resolved by automake's addition of AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. Interesting. But AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR is documented just between AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR and AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, which makes me believe that only a single cal

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The problem you describe was more of an automake limitation, and >> it has been resolved by automake's addition of AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR. > > Interesting. But AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR is documented just between > AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR and AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, which m

Re: AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Paul, Jim, Alexandre, > > gnulib-tool now supports multiple gnulib directories with a single > configure.ac. Simon needs this in GnuTLS. I need this in libglocale. > But half of gnulib doesn't work with gnulib-tool. > > Due to AC_LIBSOURCES. Hi Bruno,

AC_LIBSOURCES considered harmful

2005-09-02 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, Jim, Alexandre, gnulib-tool now supports multiple gnulib directories with a single configure.ac. Simon needs this in GnuTLS. I need this in libglocale. But half of gnulib doesn't work with gnulib-tool. Due to AC_LIBSOURCES. Paul and Jim, you pushed towards using AC_LIBSOURCES. Could you