On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 17:08 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > What would the > > alternative to pkgconfig .pc files then be? > Passing CFLAGS and LIBS from the command line, like with any other > package on this planet. Where would dependent packages intending on developing with OSG 1 or 2 get the values for CFLAGS and LIBS, then? The whole point to doing pkg-config is exactly so that developers wouldn't need to know where the providing packages files are located, what flags it requires and what libraries to link against. Granted some can be guessed due to Fedora's layout restrictions, but wouldn't that be taking a step back in the evolutionary process of development? Ultimately, the installed package would know best what it requires and not dependent developers. It was my impression that developers are moving towards pkg-config and not away. Even gnome followed this process. At one point in time, all the options had to be supplied to the "configure" script. Then they provided gnome-config, probably patterned after pkg-config. Finally they decided to settle on pkgconfig's standard. Even now with parallel installs, they've decided to adopt the <pkgname>[-<version>].pc convention. -- Richi Plana -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
