On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 22:06 -0700, Patrick West wrote:
> The idea here is that we don't know what the other packages are. There
> isn't a set list of packages that can be used with our software. And
> we have not yet implemented dynamic loading of shared objects given
> some initialization file (that's next), so we wanted something in the
> interim to allow the user to specify this during configuration of our
> software.
>
> So, what we want is --with-package=/some/path/to/package1 --with-
> package=/some/path/to/package2
Well, I don't think that particular syntax is going to work. But you
could employ a delimited list:
./configure --with-packages=package1,package2
> From this we can determine what modules, what libraries and what
> includes the user is wanting to use with our application without
> having to specify CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS and LIBS.
I think you would do a disservice to your users by trying to supplant
the functionality of CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Many users already know about
those; and those that don't will learn something they can use with other
autoconf-based (and some other) packages.
> Our options is --with-package, not --with-<package> where <package>
> is the name of a user developed package of code that implements our
> API.
>
> This is an interesting conversation, though, and I'm grateful for the
> input that you all are providing! I've learned a lot about autoconf.
pkg-config may help you--particularly if you have some say over the
configuration toolset used by your dependencies.
Please be more judicious in your quoting.
--
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
