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 _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
