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.com>wrote: > > > > > 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 guessing at the > > > proper locations/settings. Maybe this often works, but why risk it when > > > it's not necessary? > > > > 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 manual detection anyway. So why not skip > > pkg-config entirely? > > > > You also have to support static linking.
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really *really* using static linking in 2011? We go through great pains to support it, but I can't even remember the last time I even /tried/ to link something statically. Maybe 2001? I do like to support pkg-config in my packages, but I don't do it for the static linking support. Is the gain actually worth the effort? Is static linking support actually tested regularly in most packages? (I suspect very much not.) Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature