* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:33:18PM CEST:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Peter Johansson wrote:
Is there anything conceptually stopping us from writing a new
AC_LINK_IFELSE that links using libtool? That would make life
easier and avoid problems that only occur in configure and
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
pkg-config tries to solve an important problem, but it does so in the
wrong way. pkg-config checks for an exact library name,
PKG_CHECK_MODULES does not check for a library name at all,
but for the name of the .pc file. This gives the administrator
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
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
pkg-config is broken because it checks for the existance of libraries,
and not for the features that are required for the program to run.
It does not even check for the existence of libraries.
It checks for the existence of a .pc file and assumes
that the user (or
pkg-config is broken because it checks for the existance of
libraries, and not for the features that are required for the
program to run.
It does not even check for the existence of libraries.
It checks for the existence of a .pc file and assumes
that the user (or
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
pkg-config is broken because it checks for the existance of
libraries, and not for the features that are required for the
program to run.
It does not even check for the existence of libraries.
It checks for the existence of a .pc file and assumes
William Pursell wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
pkg-config is broken because it checks for the existance of libraries,
and not for the features that are required for the program to run.
It does not even check for the existence of libraries.
It checks for the existence of a .pc file and
