* Sander Niemeijer wrote on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:00:13AM CET: > > > >The practice: > > > >If you think about what it is you need to know in these terms, you > >should be able to figure out what libtool will do by looking at the > >results of the LT_INIT configure time tests. If you can't, then try > >to express your problem in those terms on this list, and we will be > >able to figure it out for you -- and maybe make a new macro that rolls > >that condition case up to help make it easier to figure out next time; > >and maybe notice that there is something in ltmain.sh that needs to be > >parameterised to make it possible. It might be worth adding some notes > >about this to libtool.texi, where we can later collect additional notes > >that walk through some examples to help future users get into the right > >mindset. > > I hope it is clear that I only want to perform a test that checks > whether a certain library is available and whether it is possible to > link this library against another shared library (which means it should > be a shared library itself). Now, of course, in theory I could write > such a test without performing an actual link or without making use of > libtool. This, however, would mean I would have to add a _lot_ of > knowledge to my test in order to have it work on many platforms with > many compilers/linkers. Knowledge which is usually already available in > the linker (i.e. just trying to link will usually tell you whether it > works or not) and/or the libtool script. Not even considering the > practical points here, even from a theoretical standpoint duplicating > knowledge is _not_ a good idea. > > Now suppose I would use the knowledge provided by libtool are you then > suggesting that libtool should have _two_ interfaces that I should use? > One for use from makefiles (i.e. the libtool script) and one to use > from the configure script (some undocumented combination of lt_ > variables and ltmain.sh)? If this is it, then so be it and I will try > to rewrite my autoconf test to use the lt_/ltmain.sh combination for > libtool 2.0, > but libtool 2.0 surely won't get my vote for the > best-design-of-the-year-award.
C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior without too much pain? Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some really fundamental thing? Or are you just waiting for a patch to do this? (ok, that was three questions now). Sander, please don't start implementing such a thing *yet*. I don't think going this route is a good idea, but at least I think you should wait until we are through with it. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
