#478310 autoscan: AC_PROG_RANLIB obsolete

Package:
autoconf
Source:
autoconf
Submitter:
Jack Bates
Date:
2020-11-25 18:18:03 UTC
Severity:
minor
#478310#5
Date:
2008-04-28 18:29:14 UTC
From:
To:
Thanks for maintaining autotools in Debian, I find autoscan and
autoreconf very helpful for maintaining my project build system : )

I think autoscan is not up to date - it complains:

autoscan: warning: missing AC_PROG_RANLIB wanted by:
        ltmain.sh:6910

However after adding AC_PROG_RANLIB to configure.ac, autoreconf
complains:

ket% autoreconf -vfi
autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Gettext
autoreconf: running: aclocal --force -I m4
autoreconf: configure.ac: tracing
autoreconf: running: libtoolize --copy --force
Using `AC_PROG_RANLIB' is rendered obsolete by `AC_PROG_LIBTOOL'
autoreconf: running: /usr/bin/autoconf --force
autoreconf: running: /usr/bin/autoheader --force
autoreconf: running: automake --add-missing --copy --force-missing
autoreconf: Leaving directory `.'
ket%

Thanks again, Jack
#478310#10
Date:
2010-08-02 20:38:45 UTC
From:
To:
[Please retain CC in followups.  Thank you.]

In April 2008, Jack Bates <ms419@freezone.co.uk> reported that
autoscan recommends adding AC_PROG_RANLIB to configure.ac, but
that libtoolize subsequently complains about AC_PROG_RANLIB as
"obsolete".

The AC_PROG_RANLIB macro is not really obsolete from an Autoconf
point of view, as far as I know.  It is not, for example,
documented as obsolete.  It is just, as I understand it, that
libtool does not need it and performs an equivalent function, so
that it warns that it is not helpful to use AC_PROG_RANLIB
yourself.

One possible solution would be for autoscan to notice
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and then suppress a warning about AC_PROG_RANLIB.
Is that a good solution?  If so, then I will see what it takes to
implement it.

Jack's original bug report is here:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=478310
#478310#15
Date:
2010-08-03 05:44:00 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Ben,

* Ben Pfaff wrote on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 10:38:45PM CEST:

Yes.

Thanks; unfortunately, autoscan doesn't yet have logic to implement
alternatives or suppressions in a general way.  There are several other
items that would be nice to improve in this tool, that we've never
gotten to.  I'm not saying you should do anything here, just that the
more reusable solution you can find, the better.  ;-)

Cheers,
Ralf
#478310#20
Date:
2018-09-04 11:53:05 UTC
From:
To:
[image: image.png]
#478310#25
Date:
2020-11-25 18:15:16 UTC
From:
To:
From Calyd Jens
Good day this Mrs. Calyd Jens permits me to share very important information that you will get benefit from with you, I want to be assured that this email belongs to you, kindly give a reply for more details.
Best regards
Mrs. Calyd Jens
jenscalyd@gmail.com