[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:06:59 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

* Albert Chin wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:23:43PM CEST:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:45PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > Autoconf can not depend on libtool, so Autoconf should not provide
> > such a macro, but it certainly makes sense for libtool to provide a
> > LT_CHECK_LIB as you describe.
> I disagree. Users shouldn't have to go through any more effort to use
> libtool. Libtool should replace things like AC_CHECK_LIB,
> AC_TRY_COMPILE, etc. with invocations to use ./libtool rather than
> $CC, $CXX, etc.

This would definitely not match the expectations of many users.

With pkg-config (and other hand-written solutions), and many systems not
installing .la files, you can't be sure to get all dependent libraries.

A real solution to LT_CHECK_LIB should also incorporate the semantics of
direct and indirect dependencies: on some systems, you really do not
want to link against all indirect dependencies.


reply via email to

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