On 04.03.2009 20:22, lahike...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, it seems like all your technical problems will be solved by my
> configure check -- which will nicely tell the user that the need to
> install protobuf or modify their CFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
Why make user do that manually if there is a much more co
I have made a patch; i hadn't committed (or fully tested) it yet. --
but so it can be reviewed i committed it:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-c/source/diff?spec=svn168&r=168&format=side&path=/trunk/configure.ac
I have a few other little fixes (issue 15 and some rpc/tcp fixes) and
so on i w
On Mar 4, 12:22 pm, lahike...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, it seems like all your technical problems will be solved by my
> configure check -- which will nicely tell the user that the need to
> install protobuf or modify their CFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
What check are you referring to? Is this something you
Well, it seems like all your technical problems will be solved by my
configure check -- which will nicely tell the user that the need to
install protobuf or modify their CFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
I'm sorry that you prefer a custom option to the standard automake
solution- as a maintainer [*], i disagree.
On 04.03.2009 16:32, lahike...@gmail.com wrote:
> Large complex systems are exactly why LDFLAGS and CFLAGS are better...
> you can set them ONCE and build the entire system to another
> location. do you really want to do --lib-a=$PREFIX --lib-b=$PREFIX
> for 50 libraries for 50 packages?
You nee
Large complex systems are exactly why LDFLAGS and CFLAGS are better...
you can set them ONCE and build the entire system to another
location. do you really want to do --lib-a=$PREFIX --lib-b=$PREFIX
for 50 libraries for 50 packages?
- dave
On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 03.03.200
On 03.03.2009 21:34, Kenton Varda wrote:
> I agree, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS are the right way to specify the library and
> include dirs
Try to compile something bigger than a medium sized lib with one dependency.
You'll see how wrong it is.
>, but the configure script probably should check for the
On 03.03.2009 21:18, lahike...@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems like you should be using
> CXXFLAGS=-I/my/install/path/include \
> LDFLAGS=-L/my/install/path/lib \
> ./configure
> instead.
Why do that manually? And how do you expect an average user to know that?
And by the way, that's exactly
We use a --with-protobuf option in protobuf-perlxs.
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-perlxs/source/browse/trunk/configure.ac
I actually copy-pasted the configure.ac part that implements --with-
protobuf into the protobuf-c configure.ac so I could build protobuf-c
in my environment recently.
-d
I agree, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS are the right way to specify the library and
include dirs, but the configure script probably should check for the
presence of libprotobuf, at least. :)
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:18 AM, wrote:
>
> It seems like you should be using
> CXXFLAGS=-I/my/install/path/incl
It seems like you should be using
CXXFLAGS=-I/my/install/path/include \
LDFLAGS=-L/my/install/path/lib \
./configure
instead.
--with-libdir is fairly ambiguous with --libdir (a standard automake
option which defines where to put libraries, rather than where to look
for them).
Perhaps thi
Hello al.
I'd like to submit a patch for protobuf-c.
Not sure if this the right list, but this seems to be the only list related to
Protobuf, so here it goes.
The patch is supposed to fix the build failure you get when Protocol Buffers
are not installed or installed not in the default path:
12 matches
Mail list logo
