Hi,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:52:39AM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK. If you say that a more fuzzy proposal shouldn't cause problems at
this point, I'll follow your lead.
In our experience, fuzzy proposals do not work well. Very few students
are up to making design decisions -- and
mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Jef Driesen writes:
Isn't it easier to just check for the presence of the header file and/or
the library file, avoiding pkg-config entirely?
Well, I'd prefer not to guess when possible, and not using pkg-config
for a package that wants you to use it means you end up
Jef Driesen jefdrie...@hotmail.com writes:
I'm aware of the advantage of using pkg-config. I even supply the *.pc
files for my own projects. But the point is that if I want to support
systems that don't have pkg-config installed (like Mac OS X in my
case), I have to provide a fallback with
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
I don't even try to fully support systems without pkg-config, I
basically just want a fallback so I can get some sort of build on them,
maybe with some features disabled.
I should note that although this is my tactic, it's not actually a very
important point.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:02 UTC, Jef Driesen jefdrie...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm aware of the advantage of using pkg-config. I even supply the *.pc
files for my own projects. But the point is that if I want to support systems
that don't have pkg-config installed (like Mac OS X in my case), I
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:38:16AM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jef Driesen jefdrie...@hotmail.comwrote:
mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Jef Driesen writes:
Isn't it easier to just check for the presence of the header file and/or
the library file, avoiding
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Jef Driesen jefdrie...@hotmail.com wrote:
You don't have to convince me of the advantages of using pkg-config.
I want to use pkg-config for exactly the same reasons as you explain.
But when I tried to build my project on a system without pkg-config
installed it
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
Sure; it's very useful for specialized libraries that won't be widely
used enough to merit the effort to build and install as dynamic
libraries.
Hello,
* Roger Leigh wrote on Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:03:16PM CET:
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
I'd love to answer no, but at least parts of the HPC crowd will do
almost anything to get a couple percent more performance
[ adding the SoC list back in Cc: ]
Hello,
* Daniel Herring wrote on Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:06:45AM CET:
Refactor Automake so it can easily be extended for new file types.
Yes, this is a good idea, too. Actually, there is a pending patch from
Valentin that does an important first step in
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Roger Leigh wrote on Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:03:16PM CET:
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
I'd love to answer no, but at least parts of the HPC crowd will do
almost anything to
11 matches
Mail list logo
