"Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But do we need to know?
We need to detect whether the library exists and is linkable, so that
we can for instance set the appropriate preprocessor and makefile
vraiebls.
> The only problem is an inconsistency between the configure script
> and the Makefile. The former invokes the linker directly, while the
> latter using libtool.
Actually, the configure script is invoking *compiler*, not the linker
directly (that is bad juju). Libtool, on the other hand, *is*
invoking linker directly. But I'm digressing.
> If we convinced the configure script to invoke the linker using
> libtool, then we could avoid handcoding RPATH support. The runtime
> check would remain intact, of course.
I see your point. Maybe someone should look into whether that's
possible or feasible. I will not be the one because I don't consider
libtool worth my time at this point.
> > Definitely. I think we should stick to the libtool we have becaus,e
> > as I said above, I'm seriously considering replacing it.
>
> I see.
But on the other hand if someone convinces me that Configure can
effectively use libtool and removes the -R detection and stuff, it
will be a serious argument *for* libtool, if you see where I'm going.
> It works, but the output is ugly (that's why my version outputs
> "cross"):
I see. I'll introduce the "coross" thing to fix the output, then.
> Here are the patches. At least one of them does not apply cleanly
> without my cross-compilation fix (so it surely won't apply to current
> sources, either). But you should get the idea.
Thanks a lot for the patches. Could you clarify: are these patches
meant for Autoconf 2.50 only, or will they work with the older
Autoconf versions too?
If it's the former, I'll look into them in a week or so
when I integrate them to 1.8.
> No ChangeLog entries at this time, but this is how I commented the
> patches in my RPM spec file:
<nag>ChangeLog entries are good!</nag>
:-)
