>> If we had gnustep-make depend on pkg-config, then you wouldn't be >> able to use GNUstep unless you installed pkg-config first. > > That's not entirely correct. GNUstep can be taught how to read > pkgconfig-format-file, such as GNUstep.pc, thus eliminating the need > for GNUstep.conf entirely,
We designed the GNUstep.conf syntax so that it can be very efficiently read from makefiles, shells, and C/ObjC code. The 'pkg-config' meta-file format can not be read easily from makefiles without firing off a subprocess. We'd then need to fire off an additional subprocess for each invocation of make, which, performance-wise, is bad. Thanks PS: I must be missing your point completely because I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Technically, you're suggesting we depend on the gnome/gtk config tools (which were not designed for us, so the integration would be massively painful) just for the sake of "being more similar to gnome/gtk". But I suspect what you'd really want to discuss is how to compile things without using gnustep-make. Which is a perfectly valid discussion, and in that context pkg-config might make sense. If you want to build using the autoconf/automake/pkg-config toolchain, then using pkg-config is an interesting option. Still, such an option shouldn't prevent the standard users from using the standard GNUstep fast/easy building system if they want, and shouldn't interfere with our internal implementation. The most obvious option is provide a gnustep-config tool that will output the gcc flags for the various stages/types of compilation, and provide some basic indication of where to install things, then you could at least compile and install tools and libraries without gnustep-make. We could make it reasonably similar to the traditional xxx-config gnome/gtk tools if you think that would make it easier to use. We can think about that. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
