On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:32:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't actually see the point of making AC_PROG_LIBTOOL require
> > _AC_PROG_LIBTOOL, so I figured I must be missing something...
>
> The point is to avoid duplicate expansion of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL.
>
> AC_REQUIRE was the simplest way to accomplish that, but there are
> certainly simpler ways. For example, AC_DEFUN_ONCE, in autoconf
> 2.49a. Another alternative is to add `define([AC_PROG_LIBTOOL],)' to
> the macro itself. We wouldn't get a warning, but so be it.
>
> I believe you're indeed stumbling across the AC_REQUIRE bug :-(
>
> > I am tempted to commit the patch as is and wait for complaints =/O|
>
> Please go ahead. If you decide to add the `define', consider it
> pre-approved.
So it is written. So it shall be done.
=)O|
Out of curiosity, what are the usual symptoms of theis Autoconf 2.13
AC_REQUIRE bug?
Cheers,
Gary.
--
___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \
\___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/
home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key:
http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc
