Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > My question is how to handle this properly. Shall the logic to test for > the existence of the .la in the foo-config file or in the configuration > script which actually uses foo-config? And what exactly should be done > if no .la file is available? I suppose it's best to fall back to the > standard foo-config option `--libs'.
If there is no *.la file available, that almost certainly means that you're on a platform where transitive shared library dependencies work properly (since that's the motivating reason for dropping the *.la files). I would therefore check in your configure script whether the *.la file you got from the --libtool option exists, and, if not, simply link directly with only the library you're using (-lfreetype, for instance) and assume everything will work. That of course doesn't work if you want to do static linking, but platforms dropping the *.la files are normally making a conscious decision to not support static linking anyway. I would also encourage any library maintainer who is providing a *-config script to also provide a pkgconfig file, since pkgconfig addresses the issue that is causing distributions to drop the *.la files and they're becoming more and more widespread beyond their initial community and are well-supported in Autoconf. Although that doesn't address your immediate issue. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
