Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:14:26 +0200
From: Peter Ekberg <peda@lysator.liu.se>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: automake: 1.4, 1.5, and wrapper
Message-ID: <20060514181426.GB2422@sellafield.lysator.liu.se>
References: <44651178.507@users.sourceforge.net> <44651F0A.20103@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44651F0A.20103@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:

...

> >3) In addition, it is possible to have a wrapper for automake with our
> >setup.  Gentoo has a similar setup, and uses this:
> >
> >http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-devel/automake-wrapper/files/am-wrapper-1.sh?content-type=text%2Fplain

...

> #3 cui bono?  The only advantage of a wrapper system, as opposed to the 
> status quo, is that you don't need to set the current alternative 
> manually to match the desired version, when using autoreconf or a 
> bootstrap/autogen.sh script.  When using enable-maintainer-rules, even 
> under the current system you don't need to worry because the proper 
> version of automake is called explicitly.
> 
> But wrappers are sometimes wrong, so you need to manually set 
> WANT_AM_FOO.  When you get right down to it, what's the diff between 
> that and update-alternatives?

Perhaps a silly question, but maybe one of the alternatives could be
a wrapper? Best of both worlds, no?

/p

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/