On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 12:36 +0900, mpsuz...@hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:
* Their custom built library is not used, the system's is.
Indeed. It might be popular when default pkg-config prefix
is differnt from the prefix that users install their own
libraries. Have you experienced the troubles
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, mpsuz...@hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:
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
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Configure scripts which trust pkg-config include and library paths and
simpy concatenate them together (often in some random order) cause big
problems for users since the user has no control over the paths used.
I don't understand the comment about random order. The
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, William Pursell wrote:
Configure scripts which trust pkg-config include and library paths and
simpy concatenate them together (often in some random order) cause big
problems for users since the user has no control over the paths used.
I don't understand the comment about
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 e...@echoreply.us wrote:
I have
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, especially in
