On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 13:39, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenhues@gmx.de wrote:
Does libpwl depend on libppl_c or libppl? If it does, then your
Roberto, could you please confirm that PWL is not dependent on PPL?
AC_CHECK_LIB test will fail on a system with only static libraries, as the -lppl_c -lppl will be listed before -lpwl thus the link will fail due to misordering. '-l' flags generally belong in LIBS not LDFLAGS, but in the AC_CHECK_LIB test you would need to ensure that eventual -L flags needed to find pwl would be listed in LDFLAGS.
If libpwl does not depend on libppl_c or libppl, then there is one more questionable case: the AC_CHECK_LIB is also tried out if ppl is in-tree. In that case it may be the case that an out-of-tree pwl is found. Would that be problematic for libpwl? If not, then the patch is OK. If yes, then the patch is still ok if you do the change I noted below inline.
Roberto, would it be possible to use a version of PWL different than the version of PPL? Again, I guess that PWL and PPL are independent.
Rainer's comment applies, but as the library list was duplicated before your patch, I won't require fixing that issue within this patch. It can be done separately, and as it is not release-critical, it can be done in Stage 1.
I already reworked the patch to address Rainer's comments. I will send out an updated patch. Thanks for your careful review.
Sebastian