Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

The theory: It is my belief that an actual link should not be necessary to test for some characteristic. Libtool runs a whole lot of autoconf tests at configure time to decide how it is going to link when the results of those tests are added to the generated libtool script. Consequently, you

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

* Sander Niemeijer wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:00:13AM CET: The practice: If you think about what it is you need to know in these terms, you should be able to figure out what libtool will do by looking at the results of the LT_INIT configure time tests. If you can't, then try to

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior without too much pain? Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some really fundamental thing? Or are you just waiting for a patch to do this? (ok, that was three questions now). I would approve a

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

On maandag, nov 22, 2004, at 12:05 Europe/Amsterdam, Peter O'Gorman wrote: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior without too much pain? Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some really fundamental thing? Or are you just waiting

Re: Convincing Automake to support libtool

* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:20:01PM CET: Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob What I have now learned the hard way is that aclocal ignores the Bob AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]) definition in configure.ac. IMHO it's a bug in whatever let you think

Re: Convincing Automake to support libtool

Hi Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:20:01PM CET: Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob What I have now learned the hard way is that aclocal ignores the Bob AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]) definition in configure.ac. IMHO it's a

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Hallo Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior without too much pain? I can't think of a way to do it cleanly :-( But I have no objections in principle. How much machinery is there to make the config.status parts of AC_OUTPUT work?

Re: Convincing Automake to support libtool

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:19:13PM CET: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:20:01PM CET: Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob What I have now learned the hard way is that aclocal ignores the Bob

Re: Convincing Automake to support libtool

Peter O'Gorman wrote: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Brother. I meant libtool--release--2.0--patch-68. Where's the coffee? What, I hadn't even realized that this was applied, shows how much attention I've been paying :( :-) Me too, please revert this for now. Okay. It looks as though we

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Sander, if you want to check whether a particular library is shared, we should be able to write a macro for you to figure that out without actually needing to roll and run an entire libtool script. Or is there more to your problem than that? There _is_ more to his problem

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Hi Sander, Sander Niemeijer wrote: I hope it is clear that I only want to perform a test that checks whether a certain library is available and whether it is possible to link this library against another shared library (which means it should be a shared library itself). Now, of course, in

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Hi Kevin, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Sander, if you want to check whether a particular library is shared, we should be able to write a macro for you to figure that out without actually needing to roll and run an entire libtool script. Or is there more to your problem

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Agreed. I think that there are a small number of circumstances where the early-build of libtool was genuinely useful, and I think we should be able to wrap each of those cases is a shipped macro that leverages the knowledge already probed for libtool without needing to actually have a libtool

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Hi Sander, Sander Niemeijer wrote: If more people require this functionality then I am all for including it in the libtool package. However, this doesn't answer the question whether the macro should be based on a libtool script or not. Furthermore, other users might have other macros that are

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Oversimplifying, but: In a configure script, you can spell `libtool -[options] [objects]' as `LT_CHECK_LIB([options], [objects])'. Maybe we need LT_LINK_IFELSE instead/as well. What I need is a replacement for the LT_AC_LINK_SHLIB_IFELSE macro in:

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Peter O'Gorman wrote: I would approve a patch which added LT_TRY_LINK or some such macro, and created a temporary configure time libtool script to do so. I think it would be a fairly hefty patch though. There is certainly enough information available to allow this as soon

Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

Gary V. Vaughan wrote: So we need an LT_CHECK_LIB macro in libtool-2-0, which may be possible by looking in .la files and the results of the other libtool configure time tests to construct an ld based link line -- or may force us to go back to a non-config.status generated libtool. Either way, the

Application is pre approved

Dear Sir or Madam, Would you REFINANCE if you knew you'd SAVE TH0USANDS? We'll get you lnterest as low as 1.92%. Don't believe me? Fill out our small online questionaire and we'll show you how. Get the house/home and/or car you always wanted, it only takes 10 seconds of your time:

急募在宅ワーカー　日給6900円可能

$B"#6HL33HBg$K$D$-:_Bp%9%?%C%U$rJg=8CW$7$^$9!#(B $BFq$7$$FbMF$G$O$"$j$^$;$s$,%$%s%?!<%M%C%H!"%a!<%k$NAw

oral health, 40, 000 hospitals, 25, 000 nursing homes and 400, 000 doctors.

The New 2005 United States Healthcare Database. This complete database includes all hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians in the country. In a rapidly-changing industry, current healthcare information is an invaluable resource to businesses and organizations. The United States Healthcare