[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

From: Patrick Welche
Subject: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:14:02 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-21)

On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Tim Mooney wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:50:23PM CEST:
> Probably, yes.
> > 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.
> To avoid linking against indirect dependencies.  Or to avoid link
> failure when other dependencies' .la files have been removed or moved.
> > Has any work (perhaps as part of libtool 2.0) gone into addressing
> > the reason(s) why they were doing that?
> Hmm.  There has been quite some discussion on this and the -patches
> list.  Please use the mail archives to dig it up.  I've suggested an
> extensive set of testsuite tests (in some Debian bug report) which I
> would see as a prerequisite to rewriting the deplib search algorithm
> in ltmain.  One point is that, for consistency, the algorithm would
> need to recursively include all indirect dependencies.
> If anyone really cares, I can dig up a list of URLs to some important
> discussion pieces.  I also have some half-finished notes, unpublished.

Maybe you could slap your half-finished in something like
libtool/mail/deplibs{,.html} ?



reply via email to

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