Excerpts from Sean Chittenden's message of Wed Oct 28 21:08:19 +0100 2009: > >> Avoid pkg-config, it's very Linux and drags in a ton of dependencies > >> (most of the time, never required, but that's the way it goes with > >> everyone's packaging system of choice). A cmake variable would be > >> preferred, imo (similar to the cmake boost version foo). -sc > > > > So let's make pkg-config opt-in? > > Totally, pkg-config is useful goodness. Use it if it's there, but not > make it the primary or only way. > > > What ton of dependencies are you referring to? > > At a minimum it currently requires the following to build (and their > subsequent dependencies): > > gettext-0.17_1 gmake-3.81_3 libiconv-1.13.1
I'm fairly sure you can --disable-nls to get rid of gettext & libiconv. > > How's it linuxy? Do you mean that it's not convenient on non-unix? > > pkgconfig has a tendency to suck in other gnome projects due to its > gnome lineage. Ugh. If you're referring to its limited use of glib, you can disable this too, and it'll use an embedded copy of the few things it uses from glib. Not ideal, but workable. > > pkg-config is quite useful on linux distributions. I largely prefer > > using > > pkg-config over going back to having a gazillion foo-config binaries. > > I get the value of pkg-config, not arguing against it, just pointing > out that we have the necessary tools in place with cmake and that > cmake is well suited for solving this problem without adding > additional dependencies. :) Okay, then we don't really disagree. :-) -- Exherbo KDE, X.org maintainer _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
