From: Stephen t. <st...@to...> - 2004-12-09 16:00:50
|
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 12:32 +0100, Michael Roitzsch wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > > In order to understand the best fix here I need someone to educate me on > > the history of libtool. Why was this line placed in configure.ac? > > > > AC_PREREQ_LIBTOOL(1.4.0, xv_lib="libXv.a", xv_lib="libXv.so") > > AFAIR, older versions of libtool had problems or did not even allow static > linking. What do we want to do? It seems to me that given what you said that: if libtool < 1.4.0 dnl link dynamic only xv_lib="libXv.so" else if libXv.so exists xv_lib="libXv.so" else xv_lib="libXv.a" fi fi I think this is the essence of the Xv patch. This could be incorporated into the AC_PREREQ_LIBTOOL line: AC_PREREQ_LIBTOOL(1.4.0, xv_lib="libXv.so", [ if test -f "$xv_path/libXv.so"; then xv_lib="libXv.so" else if test -f "$xv_path/libXv.a"; then xv_lib="libXv.a" else AC_MSG_ERROR([Unable to find either libXV.so or libXV.a]) fi fi ]) Stephen |