Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:55:14PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >We have to decide: Either the `libtoolize --ltdl' argument must
> >end in `libltdl', or we need to provide a flat directory structure.
> >(Note that this stems from the requirement to be able to either use 
> >an installed libltdl or a package-internal one, with the repective other
> >one absent).
> >
> >I like the former better for several reasons:
> >- better forward compatibility from 1.5 (maybe)
> >- supposedly less trouble when within a larger collection of
> >  sub-packages.
> >- People much rather like to bury autotools in some directory
> >  structure whose top they decide and the innards they could care less.
> >
> >Anybody know packages using libltdl with a different strategy already
> >(which would then conflict)?
> 
> Okay, I have a question or two. Since we already have a configure time 
> check to see if we are using the installed libltdl or the included copy 
>  and we even #define HAVE_LTDL if we are using an installed copy, can we not 
> simply ask people to do:
> #if HAVE_LTDL
> # include <libltdl/ltdl.h>
> #else
> # include "ltdl.h"
> #endif
> 
> and then in our #includes do something similar?

Yes, I guess.  Sheesh, I must have been more tired last night than I
thought I was.

> I realize that there is Makefile.am stuff to do too to get the -Iflags 
> correct (add a -I$(srcdir) to the AM_CPPFLAGS?), but I don't see why we 
> have to restrict developers in the way you propose. Am I missing something? 

Cannot find anything right now (though I still haven't tried your
approach).

> It is surely possible to fix it so it works "as advertised" by playing with 
> ltdl.m4 and the Makefile.am and .c and .h files in libltdl.

OK, just ditch my patch.  Is it ok to tell users to
| -I$(includedir)/lib/libltdl 

in case they want to use an installed libltdl?  Or should the HAVE_LTDL
check add this to LTDL_CPPFLAGS and tell users to use this?

Regards,
Ralf