Bruno Haible <[email protected]> writes:
> The consequence is that in packages that use GNU libtool, such programs will
> print "lt-prog" instead of "prog" in their usage message and other messages.
> This will disturb
> * the hacker who uses the programs before doing "make install",
> * the test suite.
Sorry, I'm skeptical about this. Would it be useful to test the
getprogname functionality from outside of test-getprogname.c?
> What are the possible solutions? I can see these:
> a) Modify the 'getprogname' module to strip a leading 'lt-' prefix
> (even on BSD and Cygwin platforms).
> b) Create a distinct module that is like 'getprogname' but also strips the
> 'lt-' prefix, and change the recommended idiom accordingly.
> c) Modify libtool to store the executables as .libs/lt/prog${EXEEXT} rather
> than .libs/lt-prog${EXEEXT}.
I would vote for (b), but how about just creating a shell script wrapper
around test-getprogname, which checks if it is a libtool wrapper or a
native binary and somehow passes the real program name?
Regards,
--
Daiki Ueno
