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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
