From: Vadim Z. <vz...@ze...> - 2015-07-30 20:53:54
|
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 21:06:15 +0100 William S Fulton <ws...@fu...> wrote: WSF> On 27 July 2015 at 17:52, Vadim Zeitlin <vz...@ze...> wrote: WSF> > Hello, WSF> > WSF> > Looking at SWIG configure output, it's not terribly informative right now, WSF> > e.g.: WSF> > WSF> > checking for java... java WSF> > WSF> > Wouldn't it be better to replace all occurrences of AC_CHECK_PROG[S] with WSF> > AC_PATH_PROG[S] so that it outputs something like this instead: WSF> > WSF> > checking for java... c:/java/jre/1.8.0_11-x64/bin/java WSF> > WSF> > ? I don't really see any advantage in using the CHECK version, PATH WSF> > provides more details and should IMHO be always preferred. But I might be WSF> > just insufficiently versed into autoconf lore... Does anybody know of any WSF> > reason to keep CHECKs/any objections to using PATH? WSF> > WSF> WSF> AC_PATH_PROG does look more useful than AC_CHECK_PROG. I'm all for WSF> changing it if it doesn't require changing the minimum version of WSF> autoconf. I don't know when it was introduced, but I'm pretty sure that it predates the (currently required) 2.58 by a long time. Speaking of which, I think it would be perfectly safe to require 2.6x nowadays as 2.60 is more than 9 years old by now and even the last but one 2.68 was released almost 5 years ago (see timestamps at http://mirror.ibcp.fr/pub/gnu/autoconf/) WSF> There is one caveat I can think of though. AC_PATH_PROG may WSF> return a path which includes a space. We'd need to quote all usage of WSF> the output. I recently did this for C# and Java, but all the other WSF> usage would probably need doing too which sounds like a pain to do as WSF> the quotes get swallowed up as they get passed around the makefile and WSF> there might be a lot of them. Hmm, I didn't think about this but yes, you're right, this could be a problem in theory. I am tempted to say that people using paths with spaces in them deserve what they get, but I realize that this opinion might not be shared by everybody... If you think it's important to support spaces in the paths, then we probably indeed shouldn't do this. Regards, VZ |