Re: [bob brasko net: Re: Glib]

[Tristan Van Berkom <vantr touchtunes com>]

Bob Rossi wrote:
[snip]
I'm going to step out of line here and give you my comments and
get ready to be royaly flamed ;-)

> Do you realize there is a reason that autoconf uses sh scripts to build
> most applications? It's the lowest common denominator. It supposedly works
> everywhere. Is there something wrong with the way autoconf normally
> works that is solved with pkg-config? Does this problem relate to
> building the minimal Glib?

Firstly, I dont get why autoconf/automake is so damn trendy these days,
why does it even bother generating makefiles instead of generating
"build.sh" scripts ? why do we expect maintainers to go out of their
way to maintain all these encumbersome build scripts instead of expecting
sys-admins to just INSTALL GNU MAKE ? gnu make compiles on all platforms
I ever heard of and that definitly includes all platforms that
autoconf/automake generates makefiles for. (not to mention the slew of
powefull filename/text manipulation features that are out in make-3.80)

Secondly, pkg-config out-right assumes that you are compiling and
installing to a resident machine, (try cross-compiling in a relocated
environment and generating a package that will install in the right
locations and on top of it, get your paths straight in you `.pc' files)
while I assume that this is a tool aimed at easing the build process,
isn't is counter productive to generate hard-coded paths in `.pc' files ?

Well, I guess a standard is a standard (and just that makes
it easier for everyone),

That was my totaly-off-topic too sence (sorry about that)

Cheers all,
                                   -Tristan