On Sat 16 Aug 2014 00:21:02 Wookey wrote: > +++ John Spencer [2014-08-15 23:49 +0200]: > > It seems it's "en vogue" for libs to ship their own broken > > replacement rather than supplying a portable pkgconfig file... > > the list is big, but these here are the most often used ones: > > pcap-config, pcre-config, freetype-config, apr-1-config, > > glib-config, gtk-config, ncursesw5-config, libmikmod-config, etc. > > It's not really "en vogue", it's historic: many of the things that > have their own *-config scripts are sufficiently old that they > pre-date pkg-config so are not doing this just to be annoying. At the > time they didn't have much choice. at least with some, it's not just a matter of just compile flags. the apr ones to mind as a complete mess as they use the paths to indirectly look up a bunch of other things (like use the install libtool linker script). simply dropping in a .pc file there isn't sufficient to clean up the mess :(. > > since it's unlikely to get any of those fixed in the next decade (or > > even convinced to ship .pc files instead of their NIH'd pkg-config > > replacement), > > I don't see why this should be too hard. We've (Debian) already > persuaded a couple of projects to just use pkg-config instead of > whatever homegrown stuff they had, or at least do that as well. It's > the right way to make crossing and multiarch work right (as you are > aware), and I'd hope that most upstreams could be persuaded of that. the gpg guys are the only ones that come to mind as actively ignoring and blocking progress. i too have had good experience with just about every other project. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
