Re: pkg-config comments
- From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
- To: Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Martijn van Beers <martijn earthling net>, gnome-hackers gnome org, otaylor redhat com
- Subject: Re: pkg-config comments
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:19:57 +0800 (WST)
On 24 Nov 2000, Martin Baulig wrote:
> James Henstridge <james daa com au> writes:
>
> > > However, the GNOME_PKGCONFIG_* macros from gnome-common/macros2 do work
> > > just fine; examples are in gnome-libs HEAD and libgtop HEAD ... :-)
> >
> > If it is a good macro, then it should be distributed with pkg-config. I
> > thought we were moving away from having a macros directory.
>
> They do not work when they're shiped together with pkg-config.
Users don't care about the m4 file. If people are building things from
tarballs, then all the macros will be expanded beforehand, so it shouldn't
matter.
>
> They only work if they're shiped in a package which users always must have
> installed, such as gnome-common - otherwise you won't get a clear error message
> if you don't have a recent enough pkg-config but some very confusing and weird
> autoconf failures (so you won't be able to see from the error message that it's
> pkg-config which you're missing).
If by users you mean people who download stuff from CVS and build it, then
yes. If you mean people who build stuff from tarballs, no. I think we
can require people who use CVS to install a tool like pkg-config.
>
> In GNOME 2.x we are already away from a macros directory, the macros are
> installed by gnome-common, so that all applications - no matter whether they're
> in GNOME CVS or outside of it - can use them.
I thought the agreed on solution was to distribute these macros with the
libraries/programs they are written for (where they belong). Having them
in a special macros package is basically the same as what we have now.
James.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]