Re: Using libtool 2.0 in autoconf tests

[Sander Niemeijer]

On maandag, nov 22, 2004, at 12:05 Europe/Amsterdam, Peter O'Gorman 
wrote:

> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> I would approve a patch which added LT_TRY_LINK or some such macro, 
> and created a temporary configure time libtool script to do so. I 
> think it would be a fairly hefty patch though. There is certainly 
> enough information available to allow this as soon as the LT_INIT 
> macro is complete, though there will be issues with quoting, as things 
> are quoted one extra time because of the intervening config.status.

If such a macro ever gets created it is essential that it is possible 
to chose the kind of target one wants to link (i.e. program, library 
(static/shared) or module). The whole reason why I had to step away 
from the autoconf AC_CHECK_LIB macro is because I needed to create a 
shared library instead of a program (otherwise, my libtool 1.5.x 
solution would just have been to replace CC and LD temporarily with the 
appropriate libtool commands and call AC_CHECK_LIB).

> The issue is a real one, and should be addressed. I am not convinced 
> that it need be addressed for libtool-2.0 though, nor that it requires 
> reverting to libtool-1.5 behavior.

Don't tell me you are saying that I won't be able to use libtool 2.0 
unless I create such a LT_TRY_LINK myself (or follow the lt_ 
variables/ltmain.sh approach). This rather shatters the hope that Ralf 
was trying to give me.

Best regards,
Sander