[PATCH] m4: provide additional pkg-config macros

[Luca Barbato]

On 08/05/12 14:14, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Overall I like these a lot once you explained what they did. I just
> want to make sure we get the interface right before it goes into the
> public macros.

Sure

>> +AS_CASE([$AS_TR_SH([with_]with_arg)],
>> +            [yes],[PKG_CHECK_MODULES([$1],[$2],$3,$4)],
> 
> Is it problematic to not quote $3/$4? In my experience, people will
> want to put multiline commands in these arguments and autoconf can get
> easily screwed up without the quotes. I believe m4_default in
> PKG_CHECK_MODULES will continue to use the fallback even if $3/$4 are
> quoted empty strings.

I remember I did that for a specific reason, but currently I'm not sure
which it was.

> Not exactly. AM_CONDITIONAL turns this into HAVE_$var_TRUE/FALSE.
> Better to say this creates an automake conditional named
> HAVE_[VARIABLE-PREFIX]. That's how the automake documentation
> describes it.

According
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Usage-of-Conditionals.html
it seems to do what I meant.

>> +#
>> +# --------------------------------------------------------------
>> +AC_DEFUN([PKG_HAVE_WITH_MODULES],
> 
> This might need a better name. Maybe PKG_WITH_MODULES_CONDITIONAL to
> signify you're creating an AM_CONDITIONAL?

I prefer having terse names.

>> +[
>> +PKG_WITH_MODULES([$1],[$2],,,[$3],[$4])
> 
> Why not pass all the same arguments as PKG_WITH_MODULES?

Because the macro is meant to have a stock behavior, if an override is
needed you are already adding it there.

>> +
>> +AM_CONDITIONAL([HAVE_][$1],
>> +               [test "$AS_TR_SH([with_]m4_tolower([$1]))" = "yes"])
>> +])
>> +
>> +# PKG_HAVE_DEFINE_WITH_MODULES(VARIABLE-PREFIX, MODULES,
>> +#                              [DESCRIPTION], [DEFAULT])
>> +#
>> +# Convenience macro to run AM_CONDITIONAL and AC_DEFINE after
>> +# PKG_WITH_MODULES check.
>> +#
>> +# HAVE_[VARIABLE-PREFIX] is exported as make and preprocessor variable.
> 
> exported as an automake conditional and preprocessor macro.

The wording is surely better.

> 
>> +#
>> +# --------------------------------------------------------------
>> +AC_DEFUN([PKG_HAVE_DEFINE_WITH_MODULES],
> 
> Again, I'm not so sure about the name.
> PKG_WITH_MODULES_DEFINE_CONDITIONAL? Kind of a mouthful. I do prefer
> to have the extra action as an addendum to the base name, though.
> 
>> +[
>> +PKG_HAVE_WITH_MODULES([$1],[$2],[$3],[$4])
> 
> Same as above, any reason not to pass all the arguments through to
> PKG_WITH_MODULES?

Same as above, I prefer terse names and those two macros are meant to
not have overrides (the generic one is here to cover that need, the
other two are what I ended up using about all the time).

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero