* Roger Leigh wrote on Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:34:37AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Marc Singer wrote on Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:59:13PM CEST: > >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:20:12PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> > >> > - .pc files come from pkgconfig. While a seemingly easy tool and easy > >> > solution, its incapable to solve some more complex problems. (You seem > >> > to have noted that already.) pkgconfig has nothing to do with the > >> > Autotools autoconf/automake/libtool except that by chance there might > >> > now be some maintainer overlap and that there has been the idea of > >> > absorbing its functionality into Libtool. > >> > >> IMHO, what PC files do, the .la files can do better. > > > > ACK. > > In the library linking case, certainly.
Yes. > But what about the CFLAGS for compiling client code, modversion, and > the ability to embed other variables e.g. plugin directory paths? Have you ever tried to work with multiple -devel packages on a system with more than one ABI (e.g., x86_64)? With pkgconfig choosing the wrong thing consistently? I am not saying all is well with libtool in this area, not at all, but pkgconfig just cannot express that ATM. Its model is too simplistic. > Those aren't catered for at all by libtool .la files, and so if the > two are to be merged, libtool should support these additional > features. Oh, surely pkgconfig has functionality which has nothing to do with libraries. And that part of pkgconfig is mostly fine, too. And I also acknowledge that by far not everybody using pkgconfig will want to use libtool. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
