Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn said...:

> Unfortunately, various OS distributions have made a habit of deleting the .la 
> files so a LT_CHECK_LIB would not be as helpful as it might appear.

I thought about that last problem too, which makes it more difficult to
write a robust LT_CHECK_LIB.  It probably makes sense to fall back to what
AC_CHECK_LIB does in that case, but a macro like LT_CHECK_LIB would
definitely need to handle the case where there are a mix of non-libtool
and libtool libraries.

I seem to recall discussion on this list in the past about why
distributions were doing that, but I don't recall what any of the reasons
were.  Has any work (perhaps as part of libtool 2.0) gone into addressing
the reason(s) why they were doing that?

Tim
--
Tim Mooney                              address@hidden
Information Technology Services         (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building              (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164