We can still test the pkgconfig version, without trying all possible variants. Also, pkgconfig says how to link static without overlinking, which is a combinatorial problem otherwise. On Nov 1, 2012 3:22 PM, "Matthew Knepley" <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> Bah, the problem with pkgconfig is that it doesn't handle different >> versions in different places well. We should use it in most cases, however. >> > I disagree. There is only one way to be certain of a configure setting, > and that is to test it. This will only > produce more mail from idiots who move their installation, or copy the > config file, etc. There is no redeeming > value in this idea. > > Matt > > >> On Nov 1, 2012 2:41 PM, "Matthew Knepley" <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Does, should, PETSc generate appropriate pkgconfig information for >>>> itself? Does, can, it use that information from other packages? >>> >>> >>> pkgconfig is too fragile to be of any use. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Barry >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their >>> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their >>> experiments lead. >>> -- Norbert Wiener >>> >> > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20121101/e4210270/attachment.html>
