* Tim Mooney wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:50:23PM CEST: > 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.
Probably, yes. > 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. To avoid linking against indirect dependencies. Or to avoid link failure when other dependencies' .la files have been removed or moved. > 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. 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 I also have some half-finished notes, unpublished.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... Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
