[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:05:38 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Tim Mooney wrote:

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?

Operating systems with robust library dependency support don't like the libraries explicitly specifying dependendies on libraries they are not immediately dependent on. Libtool has been specifying the full list of dependencies to the linker, as it finds them in the .la files.

You may see that autoconf encourages configure scripts to supply all of the library dependencies since the tests require it. Likewise, libtool applies all of the libraries it is instructed to apply as well as additional dependencies obtained via the .la files. A smarter build system would allow libtool to distinguish between immediate dependencies and "extraneous" dependencies and only apply the immediate dependencies if the OS/linke support it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]