[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
From: |
Tim Mooney |
Subject: |
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:50:23 -0500 (CDT) |
In regard to: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn said...:
Unfortunately, various OS distributions have made a habit of deleting the .la
files so a LT_CHECK_LIB would not be as helpful as it might appear.
I thought about that last problem too, which makes it more difficult to
write a robust LT_CHECK_LIB. It probably makes sense to fall back to what
AC_CHECK_LIB does in that case, but a macro like LT_CHECK_LIB would
definitely need to handle the case where there are a mix of non-libtool
and libtool libraries.
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. Has any work (perhaps as part of libtool 2.0) gone into addressing
the reason(s) why they were doing that?
Tim
--
Tim Mooney address@hidden
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
- LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03