Bruno Haible <> 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?

Daiki Ueno

Reply via email to