misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake

[Markus Hoenicka]

The following reply was made to PR ports/81558; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Markus Hoenicka" <markus.hoenicka at mhoenicka.de>
To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr>
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: misc/81558: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL macro is not available to automake
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 21:51:55 +0200

 Hi,
 
 Giorgos Keramidas writes:
  > > The symptoms are:
  > > - automake --add-missing --force-missing fails to install
  > >   mkinstalldirs in the sources if there is no conf subdir.
  > >   Manually copying the file fixes the build problem. If there is a
  > >   conf subdirectory, a symlink is created properly
  > 
  > I think automake looks for an option in configure.ac and puts the files
  > in the directory specified there.  The ports version of gnu-automake is
  > relatively old though and may be broken.
  > 
 
 I couldn't find a macro that would specifically control which files
 are installed in the source tree. I'll investigate further before I
 claim this is a bug.
 
  > Does the same thing happen with newer versions of automake too?  I've
  > been using automake-1.9.x for a while now, so it may be worth testing to
  > see if newer versions fix this problem and asking the port maintainers
  > to update the version installed by the port.
  > 
 
 Well, all I can say that it didn't happen with older automake
 versions.
 
  > > - the /usr/local/gnu-autotools/share/aclocal directory is next to
  > >   empty. If a package like the Iconv stuff installs m4 macros, they
  > >   end up in /usr/local/share/aclocal and are therefore not available
  > >   to the gnu version of aclocal. I know that aclocal has an --acdir
  > >   option but this is not useful for writing portable autogen.sh or
  > >   bootstrap.sh scripts.
  > 
  > Hmmm, this is a problem indeed.  One that cannot be fixed by using a
  > prefix different from /usr/local :-(
  > 
 
 Would that qualify as a bug? From my point of view this problem
 renders the gnu-autotools packages pretty useless. I don't know about
 the backgrounds of the split between bsd autotools and gnu autotools,
 but I'd prefer to have one set of autotools on the system. Otherwise
 the gnu autotools should be integrated into the installation
 procedures of autotools-related packages.
 
 Should I file a bug report about this problem?
 
 regards,
 Markus
 
 -- 
 Markus Hoenicka
 markus.hoenicka at cats.de
 (Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka")
 http://www.mhoenicka.de