Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues said...:

> > 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.

Will do.

>  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  I also have some half-finished notes, unpublished.
> What is definitely lacking on my side is something like some months
> with lots of time...

Thanks Ralf.  I subscribe to this list but not -patches so I'm much less
aware of what goes on there.  If I feel the need to dig any deeper on this
(pretty doubtful at this point, you and Bob have completely disabused me
of the notion that this is something I want to try help "solve"), I'll
do the necessary digging in the archives.

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