On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:02:35AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > Philip Brown writes: > > "pkg-config is a script to make putting together all the build > > flags when compiling/linking a lot easier. " > > > Sounds a whole like like autoconf to me. > > Umm, no. Autoconf produces a configure script, using large amounts of > m4 code and whatnot. pkg-config only combines static information from > a couple of (small) files and outputs one line of text. They do *not* > do the same thing, not by a long shot. so far, you seem to have described a situation that implies that autoconf can work without pkgconfig, but pkgconfig isnt that useful without autoconf. You did not mention, however, why pkgconfig was suddenly added to gimp1.3.7, when it was not neccessary for gimp1.2.x > (Yes, one could write configure scripts (or, configure.in files, or m4 > macros used in such) without using pkg-config. However, using > pkg-config makes the configure.in files *less* complex.) really? $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 392867 Feb 9 22:21 gimp-1.2.3/configure* -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 598688 May 30 06:34 gimp-1.3.7/configure* To me, longer usually == "more complex". Okay, thats not entirely fair, since there's more stuff in 1.3.7. And maybe pkgconfig helps lots of output, but simplifies the INPUT stuff. $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure.in -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 28462 Feb 3 19:23 gimp-1.2.3/configure.in -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 33696 May 30 06:28 gimp-1.3.7/configure.in Hmm. no, dont see any significant savings there either :-) So far, I just see extra hassle, to what is already a big hassle tracking down umpteen different new packages if you're not running linux or something that has them already.
