Debian Bug report logs - #478310
autoscan: AC_PROG_RANLIB obsolete

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jack Bates <ms419@freezone.co.uk>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: autoscan: AC_PROG_RANLIB obsolete

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:29:14 -0700

Package: autoconf
Version: 2.61-7
Severity: minor

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

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages autoconf depends on:
ii  debianutils                   2.28.5     Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii  m4                            1.4.11-1   a macro processing language
ii  perl                          5.8.8-12   Larry Wall's Practical Extraction 

Versions of packages autoconf recommends:
ii  automake [automaken]          1:1.10.1-3 A tool for generating GNU Standard

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 478310@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>

To: bug-autoconf@gnu.org

Cc: 478310@bugs.debian.org

Subject: autoscan: suppress warning about AC_PROG_RANLIB if AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is present?

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:38:45 -0700

[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
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

Message #15 received at 478310@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>

To: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>, 478310@bugs.debian.org

Cc: bug-autoconf@gnu.org

Subject: Re: Bug#478310: autoscan: suppress warning about AC_PROG_RANLIB if AC_PROG_LIBTOOL is present?

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:44:00 +0200

Hi Ben,

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

Yes.

> If so, then I will see what it takes to implement it.

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.  ;-)

> Jack's original bug report is here:
>         http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=478310

Cheers,
Ralf

Message #20 received at 478310@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Goodluck eganeva <lawyergoodluckeganeva00123@gmail.com>

To: lawyergoodluckeganeva00123@gmail.com

Subject: dieser

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:53:05 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[image: image.png]

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[image.png (image/png, inline)]

Message #25 received at 478310@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Calyd Jens <sandra.kone71@yahoo.com>

Subject: From Calyd Jens

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:15:16 +0000 (UTC)

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

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.