Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Sander Niemeijer wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:00:13AM CET:
> >
> >The practice:
> >
> >If you think about what it is you need to know in these terms, you
> >should be able to figure out what libtool will do by looking at the
> >results of the LT_INIT configure time tests.  If you can't, then try
> >to express your problem in those terms on this list, and we will be
> >able to figure it out for you -- and maybe make a new macro that rolls
> >that condition case up to help make it easier to figure out next time;
> >and maybe notice that there is something in ltmain.sh that needs to be
> >parameterised to make it possible.  It might be worth adding some notes
> >about this to libtool.texi, where we can later collect additional notes
> >that walk through some examples to help future users get into the right
> >mindset.
> 
> I hope it is clear that I only want to perform a test that checks 
> whether a certain library is available and whether it is possible to 
> link this library against another shared library (which means it should 
> be a shared library itself). Now, of course, in theory I could write 
> such a test without performing an actual link or without making use of 
> libtool. This, however, would mean I would have to add a _lot_ of 
> knowledge to my test in order to have it work on many platforms with 
> many compilers/linkers. Knowledge which is usually already available in 
> the linker (i.e. just trying to link will usually tell you whether it 
> works or not) and/or the libtool script. Not even considering the 
> practical points here, even from a theoretical standpoint duplicating 
> knowledge is _not_ a good idea.
> 
> Now suppose I would use the knowledge provided by libtool are you then 
> suggesting that libtool should have _two_ interfaces that I should use? 
> One for use from makefiles (i.e. the libtool script) and one to use 
> from the configure script (some undocumented combination of lt_ 
> variables and ltmain.sh)? If this is it, then so be it and I will try 
> to rewrite my autoconf test to use the lt_/ltmain.sh combination for 
> libtool 2.0,
> but libtool 2.0 surely won't get my vote for the 
> best-design-of-the-year-award.

C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior
without too much pain?  Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some
really fundamental thing?

Or are you just waiting for a patch to do this?  (ok, that was three
questions now).

Sander, please don't start implementing such a thing *yet*.  I don't
think going this route is a good idea, but at least I think you should
wait until we are through with it.

Regards,
Ralf