[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
From: |
Patrick Welche |
Subject: |
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:14:02 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-21) |
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Tim Mooney wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:50:23PM CEST:
...
> 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 I also have some half-finished notes, unpublished.
...
Maybe you could slap your half-finished in something like
libtool/mail/deplibs{,.html} ?
Cheers,
Patrick
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?,
Patrick Welche <=