On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:55:50 -0400 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What was the rationale for removing the included glib? It was put > into pkgconfig in order to break the recursive dependence: glib > requires pkgconfig which requires glib which ... > > Granted, the version of glib included in pkgconfig is old (but it's > capable enough for what pkgconfig needs) and has a one-line bug when > compiling on cygwin; I just patch that and move on... > > Anyway, if your version of pkgconfig (0.8.0 + local glib) compiled > gnome-vfs (on a particular date), yet the "official" cygwin version of > pkgconfig (0.10.0) failed to do so: > > I would think the problem is either: > something broke in the real pkgconfig sources between 0.8.0 and > 0.10.0 or > gnome-vfs (on the particular date) was either exploiting a bug in > pkgconfig-0.8.0, or was otherwise broken. > > I don't think the answer is to use (and recommend) that cygwinners who > want gnome use a old version of pkgconfig with a circular > dependency... > > Thanks for offering to try with "real" pkgconfig-0.12.0. You'll > probably need to apply this patch (if you keep the included static > glib): > > --- pkgconfig-0.10.0-orig/glib-1.2.8/gstrfuncs.c Mon Apr 17 > 11:05:16 2000 > +++ pkgconfig-0.10.0/glib-1.2.8/gstrfuncs.c Sat Feb 23 01:38:15 > 2002@@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ > char *msg; > > #ifdef HAVE_STRSIGNAL > - extern char *strsignal (int sig); > + extern const char *strsignal (int sig); > return strsignal (signum); > #elif NO_SYS_SIGLIST > switch (signum) > > I look forward to seeing the results of your experiment. There was no circular dependency for glib-1.2.10. In fact when I ported it I had never heard of pkg-config. Anyway, I have built pkgconfig-0.12.0, with your patch, and gnome-vfs configure works fine with it. So if/when it is adopted as the "official" cygwin version I will remove pkg-config from my website. Steven