On Tuesday 18 October 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Saturday 01 October 2011, Patrick Spendrin wrote: > > Am 01.10.2011 21:33, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: > > > On Wednesday 21 September 2011, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote: > > >> Michael Jansen <[email protected]> writes: > > >>> Not sure here. After a (short) talk to some kde windows guys i remember > > >>> he said there is pkgconfig for windows but it is considered completly > > >>> broken. I think thats why most modules do that magic. Do ignore it on > > >>> windows even if there. > > >> > > >> I've often times heard non-KDE people say pkgconfig used to be broken > > >> but should work fine nowadays, so I'm a bit confused here. It'd be nice > > >> if the kde-windows guys could provide more details on what's the current > > >> state of pkgconfig for them. > > > > > > Yes. > > > Also, whenever I said somewhere that our cmake files must be able to find > > > stuff also without pkgconfig, people replied that nowadays it works just > > > fine under Windows. > > > > > > So, Windows developers: what's the current state of pkg-config under > > > Windows ? Does it work ? > > > > Well, it runs. > > > > > Do you use it ? > > > > Not in a sense where I want to. > > > > > Does it work with mingw ? > > > Does it work with MSVC ? > > > > The issue with pkgconfig and also the point why we don't use it is the > > following: pkgconfig uses .pc files to find out about the layout of a > > library. This means that e.g. the installation path is hardcoded into > > that file, which makes sense as long as you don't send around packages > > containing these files: on a different system those paths will not have > > any meaning, so it is completely useless to put those paths in there. So > > what to do? One could argue to add an option to pkgconfig to replace > > those paths, which is not the best idea either - also it would involve > > somebody (in the end: me) hacking on pkgconfig. > > > > To conclude: > > At the moment it doesn't make sense to use pkgconfig for us on Windows - > > we only gain more work load from it. It might make sense for really > > small projects or corner cases to use pkgconfig (e.g. if you'd need to > > rewrite the buildsystem for glib otherwise), but for us, it has only > > disadvantages. > > So, I'm not sure what the conclusion is. > It sounds like the find-modules have to find the stuff successfully also > without pkg-config under Windows. > And if this is a requirement, then I ask myself, if the find-modules have to > be written in a way that they work without pkg-config just as good as with > pkg-config, then why do we need the pkg-config stuff in them at all, I mean > e.g. under Linux ? > > Alex
On the other hand, I have the impression that you simply made a rhetoric question, that you have taken your decision beforehand, and you only want to listen a confirmation of your own opinion, dismissing and silencing the dissenting voice. Pedro _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
