>Thank you very much for your answer, this autolinking may be wasn't a >great idea after all. Dude, I've been watching this conversation for a while . The idea isn't bad as it seems, but I think this is what package managers where built for (i.e. RPM). By handing your friend the *script* that you wrote (and cross-compiled for her architecture) as a RPM-package, the package manager should be able to figure out the missing package and report an informative error. A compiled ELF object file will also contain the name of the library file needed to run the executable (i.e. boost_filesystem.so). Although the library name might be cryptic to some users, it will help in a Google search.
Another way to take care of this problem is to use Autoconf. This way you can check for the existence of a library in the *configure* script and report an informative error to the user. This will make you able to ex-change the source code, instead of a compiled package or ELF object file. Another reason why this might be a bad idea is that the information regarding linking and compilation will be distributed among the project files, which will get really messy for large projects. Instead, the current approach of the Makefiles will make management a better experience. Cheers, -- John V. Shahid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ help-gplusplus mailing list help-gplusplus@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
