Jens Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I like pkg-config too, and used it for a bunch of tests. Most of my > > first bug reports on Gnash were all from people without pkg-config, so I > > rewrote all the configure tests to not need it.
If they hadn't pkg-config, sdl-config, etc. it was their dependency problem. Like they installed the XXX libray because the configure said so they could install pkg-config, too. > Hmmm, pkgconfig doesn't seem an unreasonable dependency to me, > considering that libxml2, gtk2, cairo, pango, glib2, and gtkglext all > support it. I completely agree. pkg-config could also not be a required dependency, but if exists it should be used. > > In fact, I even dropped all the compile or link tests too, and stuck > > to simple directory & file searching. The compile tests are also often > > too complex for true portability. I figured it would be better if the > > configure finished, so people can see what they need to install rather > > than just having configure abort because somebodies machine isn't setup > > quite right. > > I dunno, personally I would rather "configure" failed than "make". :) > IMHO not using pkgconfig will lead to unnecessary configure > maintenance work. Personally I prefer a configure that doesn't fail if I have all the dependencies, rather that one that fails because it doesn't use the correct way to detect them, or that doesn't fail but silently disable half of the features I selected because it didn't find the libs. -- Alex Dupre _______________________________________________ Gnash mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash
