On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:06:59PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:35:04PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote: > > >> Anyway, there are so many scripts depending on these names, that > > >> whatever scheme will be chosen, we will keep them. > > > > Thomas> (such as AC_CHECK_LIB ;-) > > > > I must have lost the track here. Many people have asked for its > > modernization, but this precisely never happened because of backward > > compatibility issues. I guess you are referring to some change, but I > > can't remember which one. > > iirc, the first bug I spotted in 2.50 was that AC_CHECK_LIB had changed > the naming convention for the associated cache variable so that checks > for the same function in more than one library would no longer work.
Actually, since the message exchange, I digged into a few bug reports, and fell onto a bug report about 2.50 (which was fixed them) that does seem to refer to what you meant. Indeed, there was a backward compatibility issue with AC_CHECK_LIB (and I apologize for it), but really, it was a bug, not something intentional. So, Thomas, maybe my subconscience is working for you and against me, but wrt that particular point, nothing was meant against AC_CHECK_LIB :)
