Re: Validity of "fake" convenience library

[Peter O'Gorman]

address@hidden wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman - address@hidden wrote:
>> I am pretty sure that you can similarly avoid the need for a fake
>> convenience .la, but can not work it out without actually attempting a
>> build :)
> 
> On a related note, I'm working with a non-libtool library (we'll call it
> x) that ships libxz.a and libx.so.  So a static build uses -lxz and a
> shared build uses -lx.  To use this in an autotools project, I wrote a
> libmy_x.la.in with @variables@ to be determined by the configure script.
> Thus both flavors can now specify -lmy_x.
> 
> Is there a better way to handle libs with different static/shared names,
> or is this another place where the fake convenience library is appropriate?

Please do not respond to me directly, instead ask on the list.

Peter
-- 
Peter O'Gorman
http://pogma.com