On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Albert Chin wrote: > > > > > > AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([c c++]) > > > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL > > > > This means we'd have to get rid of --with-tags. As it's not > > documented, I'm for this. If someone specifies AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS, and > > say C++ isn't specified, I don't want AC_PROG_CXX dragged in. > > I am also in favor of either getting rid of --with-tags, or supporting > it via a configure.ac macro that the package author needs to add. > Currently libtool adds a --with-tags option to the configure script > for each package which uses it. This is confusing to package users > since there is no context associated with the option: > > --with-tags[=TAGS] > include additional configurations [automatic] > > An option like > > --with-libtool-languages[=languages] > > would be clearer for an end user. However, I would also contend that > end-users should have no need to be aware that a package uses libtool.
I think --with-libtool-languages and AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS are mutually exclusive. For example: AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([C]) AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and then --with-libtool-languages="C++" is useless because the C++ glue code won't be in configure. --with-libtool-languages means that every tag has to be present in configure. Ick. Ditch --with-tags! -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
