[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
From: |
Albert Chin |
Subject: |
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:23:43 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6i |
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:20:45PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Autoconf can not depend on libtool, so Autoconf should not provide
> such a macro, but it certainly makes sense for libtool to provide a
> LT_CHECK_LIB as you describe.
I disagree. Users shouldn't have to go through any more effort to use
libtool. Libtool should replace things like AC_CHECK_LIB,
AC_TRY_COMPILE, etc. with invocations to use ./libtool rather than
$CC, $CXX, etc.
--
albert chin (address@hidden)
- LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?,
Albert Chin <=
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Russ Allbery, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03