On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:25 -0600, Richi Plana wrote: > 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. Right, but upstream has decided otherwise. > 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. This impression is wrong. Some developers do, some don't. It's a tool devs can take or leave, it solves some issues, but it also introduces new ones. > Even gnome followed this process. It is in particular the GNOME community who follows it, because pkg-config has a gtk/glib/GNOME related past, while many other devel communities don't. > At one point in time, all > the options had to be supplied to the "configure" script. This still applies, this is what "packaging is about". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
