On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 11:20 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:43:48PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > Ick. Libtool is about portably building/using libraries. Why can't we
> > leave it at that?
>
> But linking against installed libraries
On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 15:27 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 10:21:19AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > It's just that their functionality
> > intersects and partially conflicts.
>
> how?
>
> pkg-config is used to give basic information about installed packages.
> libtool is
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 23:02 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > It doesn't care about package versions, but it has to care about library
> > versions and paths to libraries.
>
> again, functionality provided by pkg-config.
>
> I am contesting the claim "Libtool already has all the information
> it ne
âÁÏèoï¢ÌêàÍTCgIÑ©çB
oï¢TCg̨©ßîñª¢ÁÏ¢ÌNðWßܵ½B
«Ú×ÍR`©ç«
http://www.i67.jp/~link/
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
On 2004-11-14T08:50-, Scott James Remnant wrote:
) On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 11:20 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
) > Haven't thought through the -I thing yet though... maybe that doesn't
) > belong in libtool... maybe we could provide a macro that can intuit
) > include directories from .la locatio
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:57:27AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> a needed-following link loader.
What does this mean?
--
albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
Libtool maili
Hi Scott!
Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 15:27 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 10:21:19AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>It's just that their functionality
>>intersects and partially conflicts.
>
>how?
>
>pkg-config is used to give basic information about ins
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Albert Chin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:57:27AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
What does this mean?
I assume that he is talking about ELF inherited dependencies. Wit
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
My main complaint about pkg-config is this: It is supposed to
make it easier to link with packages that have each been installed
to their own prefix (to support parallel installation of multiple
versions), but in fact it makes things much harder.
Real wo
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has
used its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most
systems use just one or two installation prefixes.
Absolutely.
But the point is that pkg-config is supposed to help with parallel
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:04:31PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> You mean that the installed .pc files need to be altered by the
> user to give things a hope of linking? ;-)
Hate to chime in, but I always seem to have to add -Wl,-R... to the *.pc
files, so have not ended up being a fan of pkg-co
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:57:27AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 15:27 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 10:21:19AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > It's just that their functionality
> > > intersects and partially conflicts.
> >
> > how?
> >
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:53:15AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 23:02 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't care about package versions, but it has to care about library
> > > versions and paths to libraries.
> >
> > again, functionality provided by pkg-config
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has used
its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most systems use
just one or two installation prefixes.
Absolutely.
But the point is that p
On 2004-11-14T14:56-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
) On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
) > $ PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/libgdiplus10/lib/pkgconfig
) You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has
) used its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most
) systems
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 05:09:08PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
> On 2004-11-14T14:56-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> ) On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> ) > $ PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/libgdiplus10/lib/pkgconfig
> ) You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has
> ) used i
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:53:15AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 23:02 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't care about package versions, but it has to care about library
> > > versions and paths to libraries.
> >
> > again, functionality provided by pkg-config
Hi Jacob,
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 05:09:08PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
On 2004-11-14T14:56-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
) On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
) > $ PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/libgdiplus10/lib/pkgconfig
) You seem to be a victim of a package install where every
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:04:31PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Bob!
>
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has
> >used its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most
> >systems use just one or two installation prefixes
19 matches
Mail list logo
