* Albert Chin wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:23:43PM CEST: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:45PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > Autoconf can not depend on libtool, so Autoconf should not provide > > such a macro, but it certainly makes sense for libtool to provide a > > LT_CHECK_LIB as you describe. > > I disagree. Users shouldn't have to go through any more effort to use > libtool. Libtool should replace things like AC_CHECK_LIB, > AC_TRY_COMPILE, etc. with invocations to use ./libtool rather than > $CC, $CXX, etc.
This would definitely not match the expectations of many users. With pkg-config (and other hand-written solutions), and many systems not installing .la files, you can't be sure to get all dependent libraries. A real solution to LT_CHECK_LIB should also incorporate the semantics of direct and indirect dependencies: on some systems, you really do not want to link against all indirect dependencies. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
