Philip Brown writes:
> "pkg-config is a script to make putting together all the build
> flags when compiling/linking a lot easier. "
> Sounds a whole like like autoconf to me.
Umm, no. Autoconf produces a configure script, using large amounts of
m4 code and whatnot. pkg-config only combines static information from
a couple of (small) files and outputs one line of text. They do *not*
do the same thing, not by a long shot.
The configure.in file that autoconf reads can contain calls to
pkg-config (or, more correctly, m4 macro calls that expand to shell
code that calls pkg-config).
(Yes, one could write configure scripts (or, configure.in files, or m4
macros used in such) without using pkg-config. However, using
pkg-config makes the configure.in files *less* complex.)
(I am not saying that autoconf, pkg-config, libtool etc form an ideal
solution. It can be very hard to understand what is going on. They are
coded in shell, m4 and Perl. Perhaps it would be better to combine
them *all*, including make, into one tool, written in one language. Or
maybe not. But until something better comes along, and authors adopt
it, no use whining.)
Gimp-developer mailing list