On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 03:33:02PM -0600, Albert Chin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:20:13AM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > Albert Chin wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:43:48PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > > >>On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 14:24 +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>6. Absorb the functionality of the aberration called pkg-config. Libtool
why is pkg-config an aberration? it's very useful for eliminating disgusting homegrown m4 macros from configure scripts because it's very easy to use. > > >>> already has all the information it needs, we just need to teach it > > >>> (or > > >>> maybe a subsidiary script) to spit out link flags after poking around > > >>> in a dependency chain of .la files. > > >> > > >>There's actually a couple of things pkg-config does that Libtool doesn't > > >>currently do. pkg-config's main job can be summed up simply as enabling > > >>parallel-installed -dev packages. since when does libtool care about CFLAGS or package versions? > > > What about non-libtool libraries wanting to benefit from pkg-config? > > > This will require them to spit out .la files rather than .pc files. > > > > Nope, to absorb pkg-config libtool will need to be aware of .pc files too. > > If libtool can't find a .la file, but there is a suitable .pc file in the > > search patch, libtool would pull the flags from there. > > Just gross! that's the understatement of the year. > -- > albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
