Re: New autoconf macro

David Kastrup wrote:
> Jan-Ake Larsson <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > I presume you mean
> >
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> If I am correct in that assumption, we should be able to get rid of
> >> not only AC_FULL_EXPAND.
> >  _________/\__________________
> > /                             \
> > all _expand variables but also
> 
> No, we actually currently have stuff like options set to the _string_
> '${prefix}/whatever', with ${prefix} later getting expanded in the
> Makefile (either by make or the shell, forgot which). 

By make.

> And not even
> this weirdness will be needed anymore if I am correct.  The current
> idea of lispdir-relative settings coupled with DESTDIR should be all
> we need.  No late expansion of shell variables anymore.  It can all be
> done at configure time.  This means, of course, that
> 
>   make prefix=somethingelse
> 
> will _not_ work anymore, since most variables will not be
> prefix-relative.  But I don't think this is a problem, is it?

It is not so wierd, most of autoconf's defaults are like that. They
get expanded by make and are actually mostly the reason why 

 make prefix=foo 

works. So I would expect it to _start_ working rather than the
opposite. 

A few questions:

1) A while ago I introduced a fix for a CVS mishap in
   EMACS_EXAMINE_PACKAGEDIR checking for an extra auctex subdirectory.
   The fix has been in place a year and a half. No release was made
   with the erroneous autoconf code, but a few has been made
   containing the fix. Perhaps I can remove it now?

2) All the line continuation backslashes in EMACS_EXAMINE_PACKAGEDIR
   seem unnecessary, EMACS_TEST_LISPDIR makes do without them.

3) AC_FULL_EXPAND is performed on arguments to --with-texmf-dir, for
   the purpose of doing only test -d ${withval}, I am unsure of the
   reason for this? I mean, shell variables would be expanded as
   needed there. It is also used in EMACS_TEST_LISPDIR, but there I
   think we can just amend the lisp code, or trust shell expansion.
   Neither of these do shell escaping, there are double quotes in
   effect.

4) Why is $3 "there for historical reasons" in EMACS_LISP, the macro
   is internal to our code? I take it that $5 and $6 are used to avoid
   some extra quoting business, is this true?

/JÅ


-- 
The box said "Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, or better", so I installed Linux.