[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Smart --with-package=DIR (for absentminded users)
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Smart --with-package=DIR (for absentminded users) |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:54:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Hello Thomas,
* Thomas Lavergne wrote on Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 03:15:58PM CEST:
>
> My package is an ensemble of C files which are build in a static library
> libbar.a and associated header bar.h. My library depends on another library
> (foo) which should be pre-installed on the system.
>
> At configure time, to make sure I have access to foo, I make 3 tests.
> First AC_CHECK_HEADER([foo.h]), then
> AC_CHECK_TYPE([aSymbolIn_foo],,[#include <foo.h>]) and eventually
> AC_CHECK_LIB([foo],[aMedhodIn_foo]).
>
> My question: strictly speaking (and IMHO) the last test is too much. The
> building of a static library does not indeed use any linking. Isn't it a
> bit too much to ask for LINKING (AC_CHECK_LIB) of a library function at
> configure time when we won't use the linker at compile time?
But doesn't your package have a couple of test programs that are to be
linked at
make check
time against (yours and) those libraries, to ensure proper operation of
your library?
> In (almost) real life, we might want to configure, build and install our
> library although the programming team next door is not yet ok with the
> implementation of libfoo.a (although we agreed on the interface available
> in foo.h).
Well, your action-if-not-found for AC_CHECK_LIB need not be erroring
out. It could be a warning, too. Or it could be a warning if the user
specified --enable-development-mode. Or you could just comment out the
test for the time being.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Ralf