On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 08:35 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Stepan,
>
> On Monday 10 January 2005 06:00 am, Stepan Kasal wrote:
>
> > So it's usually enough to write
> ....
> > Well, I'd use
> >
> > if [some-shell-script-test]
> > then
> > ...
> > AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [true])
> > else
> > ...
> > AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [false])
> > fi
>
> This is more-or-less exactly what is going on, except that
> the "some-shell-script-test" includes (but is not exactly
> limited to) some compile-and-link macros. However, upon
> reading the docs some more, they explicitly state to not do
> this. Is that overcaution in the docs?
No, it is not, IMO.
> Should one actually
> do the following?
Yes, I think so.
I've been bitten by this issue several times and found constructs like
your example below to be the only reliable way to set up
AM_CONDITIONALs.
> > if [some-shell-script-test]
> > then
> > ...
> > set_XXX=true
> > else
> > ...
> > set_XXX=false
> > fi
> > AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [${set_XXX}])
Ralf
