Hey,
A guy using libs experience a strange problem.
configure checks if -R must be followed by a space when checking X. the
log is:
configure:20215: checking for X
configure:20450: result: libraries /usr/X11R6/lib, headers /usr/X11R6/include
configure:20472: checking whether -R must be follo
What's the current general wisdom on using the pkg-config extensions? I
presume there's a reason they've not been incorporated into basic autoconf, so
I'm keen to learn what common practices there are toward adopting it into
people's builds (or avoiding it).
Cheers,
-MSK
__
"Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
> What's the current general wisdom on using the pkg-config
> extensions? I presume there's a reason they've not been
> incorporated into basic autoconf, so I'm keen to learn what
> common practices there are toward adopting it into people's
> builds (or avoiding it
>But shouldn't absolute names work as arguments to -I, or in CCLD
>settings?
>From the point of oure building, you are right: there is absolute no
difference in using relative or absolute pathes.
However, there might be some differences in the usability of the
binary output and I think this is wha
> -Original Message-
> From: autoconf-bounces+msk=cloudmark@gnu.org [mailto:autoconf-
> bounces+msk=cloudmark@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Ben Pfaff
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:31 PM
> To: autoconf@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: pkg-config wisdom
>
> I imagine that pkg-config has not be
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 14:31, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I imagine that pkg-config has not been integrated into Autoconf
> because it does not fit well into the Autoconf philosophy.
I use pkg-config quite heavily in one of my projects, I'm just
wondering is there a more "autoconf" way of performing the
"Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
>> I imagine that pkg-config has not been integrated into Autoconf
>> because it does not fit well into the Autoconf philosophy.
>
> Right, so I'm wondering what that philosophy is, I suppose.
Usually Autoconf tests for particular features, by attempting to
compile
> I imagine that pkg-config has not been integrated into Autoconf
> because it does not fit well into the Autoconf philosophy.
I use pkg-config quite heavily in one of my projects, I'm just
wondering is there a more "autoconf" way of performing the same
task as I constantly run into
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:44 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> What's the current general wisdom on using the pkg-config extensions?
> I presume there's a reason they've not been incorporated into basic
> autoconf, so I'm keen to learn what common practices there are toward
> adopting it into pe
Although pkg-config is useful in some cases, I agree with
others' negative evaluation against the idea to builtin
pkg-config support of autoconf. I want autoconf to keep
the library detection without pkg-config.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:48:30 +0800
Tim Post wrote:
>I have experienced many issues us
> The most popular scenario I think is: the pkg-config
> itself is bundled to the system (/usr/bin/pkg-config etc)
> but the users install their own libraries to non-system
> directory (e.g. /usr/local/xxx), and the users slipped
> to set PKG_CONFIG_PATH manually.
Definitely very useful, especiall
11 matches
Mail list logo
