On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Gary V.Vaughan wrote: > > > Another problematic case is ensuring "correctness" of guess-derived > > results. Without additional checks, you can't guarantee anything. > > Eg. wrt. host_os, you can't guess on the object format or if an OS > > honors LD_LIBRARY_PATH/LD_RUN_PATH or other advanced linker features > > libtool might require on a system (I am not a libtool expert, so bare > > with the examples). > > Libtool has however done exactly this with reasonable success for the > last 8 years... There are cases where testing $host is simply the path > of least resistance, but pragmatism is not a bad thing.
Yes, libtool works, but by definition it is always behind. There are always new operating systems, and tools are always changing. That is why software I support has been using CVS versions of libtool since the very beginning. As a basis for comparison, there is a large population of developers still using a version of Autoconf which dates from 1996. Apparently feature testing does work for many/most areas. As far as shared library naming and linker features goes, I expect that tests could be written which observe what works and what doesn't. Maybe in an hour or so, a feature-based libtool would come up with the right answers. Most people don't have that long to wait. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
