On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Daiki Ueno <u...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> 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?

I have not thought about this enough, and will probably end up
discarding or reworking the patch I have just posted.

Reply via email to