[tex-k] Autoconf-2.13 vs. 2.59

[Olaf Weber]

Peter Breitenlohner writes:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Karl Berry wrote:

>>> using the $extrasub that is part of the sed pipeline in the current

>> Ah, extrasub!  I'd forgotten all about that.  Maybe I wheedled them into
>> that.  Like you say, too long ago, and I don't feel like researching my
>> old mail archives.  Anyway ...

>> If we aren't using extrasub any more, we should probably tell them so
>> they can remove it.

>> following variables are not substituted until after that part of the
>> pipeline:

> Ah, I didn't realize that $extrasub was on behalf of TeX. Is it still used.

TeX has never used it, and since we do need @srcdir@ etc to be
substituted I doubt we will _ever_ use it, since it simply doesn't
fulfill our requirements.

> Olaf,
> please note that (contrary to extrasub) the hook I proposed inserts a
> separate sed command into the pipeline (in front of all the others). That
> is essentially just what the present (modified) autoconf-2.13 does.

I seem to have been too subtle: yes, I did check your code and saw
that in contrast to "$extrasub" your hook sits in the right place (I
knew what to look for, and that it had to be looked for).

>> More basic question: can we get away from having to do the
>> configure-time file inclusions completely?  Peter, I know your proposed
>> mail to autoconf discussed this to some extent, but is it really
>> impossible?  ....

> That's something we should consider. For web2c/{tex,etex,pdftex,...}
> the possibility to have several independently maintained makefile
> fragments is certainly very convenient.

There are two factors:

1 - The makefile fragments for etex, pdftex, ...
2 - The makefile fragments in texk/make/

At a pinch, the fragments in (1) can be rewritten to not require any
substitutions at all.  I, at least, do not find it inconvenient that
these are separate files, and conditionally part of Makefile.in.  In
some ways this makes them easier to maintain than having essentially
the same code replicated several times in Makefile.in.

The fragments under (2) are used to provide common functionality and
code sharing in a large number of makefiles.  An alternative would be
to use automake.  The final alternative is to replicate these makefile
bits in all the texk/*/Makefile.in, and maintain the result in all of
these files, instead of one place.

> Is it true or not that ac_include is used for makefile fragments only?

I believe we use it for makefile fragments only.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)