|
From: | Tim Mooney |
Subject: | Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: | Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:42:13 -0500 (CDT) |
In regard to: Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin said (at...:
The specific case I'm looking at is for a package that wants to check for libneon. Neon (which is a libtool library) might have been linked against OpenSSL (which might require pthread libraries and/or krb5 libraries), and definitely requires one of libxml2 (which might have requirements like zlib, pthread, libm, et. al.) or expat. If I want to check for libneon at configure time, using just AC_CHECK_LIB or AC_SEARCH_LIB will be extremely painful, because even with the fourth argument to either of those macros, I'll still have to write a battery of configure tests to figure out which particular combination of libraries is required to get libneon and its dependencies. If there's a libtool-aware equivalent macro, it would be so much easier.Is libneon a static library? If not, and libneon has the 3rd-party libraries as dependencies, why shouldn't linking with just -lneon work?
It is static. The default for libneon is to build static only, so on many systems where the main package would be configured, there would only be a static libneon available. You would certainly know better than I, but I was also under the impression that not all of the common UNIX variants automatically pull in dependant libraries, even when they're listed as dependencies for a shared libneon. I know that works on many (Linux and most/all? ELF-based systems) systems, but I thought a few of the platforms didn't. Tim -- Tim Mooney address@hidden Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |