Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hallo Ralf,

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior
> without too much pain?

I can't think of a way to do it cleanly :-(  But I have no objections in
principle.  How much machinery is there to make the config.status parts
of AC_OUTPUT work?  Maybe we can create an _LT_OUTPUT macro to generate
libtool at the end of LT_CONFIG?

> Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some
> really fundamental thing?

It means that we no longer have to run configure twice, and cleans up the
the LT_INIT (nee AC_PROG_LIBTOOL) code path immensely.  I really don't
want to go back to the old way of doing things... it was a mess.  However,
there are certainly advantages to being able to call libtool from within
configure.

> Or are you just waiting for a patch to do this?  (ok, that was three
> questions now).

I was hoping that we would be able to factor the common lt_* variable
tests into new LT_* macros for people to use.

> Sander, please don't start implementing such a thing *yet*.  I don't
> think going this route is a good idea, but at least I think you should
> wait until we are through with it.

Seconded.

Sander, if you want to check whether a particular library is shared,
we should be able to write a macro for you to figure that out without
actually needing to roll and run an entire libtool script.  Or is
there more to your problem than that?

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature