Re: Validity of "fake" convenience library

[Daniel Herring]

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?

Thanks,
Daniel