Ron wrote:
> Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with pkg-config at all.
> Using pkg-config isn't an "alternate solution" to "the problem",
> since there is no problem that the .la are solving for us here.
>
> I could remove the .pc files for this lib too, and it would still
> be perfectly functional, but that could be genuinely disruptive
> and may require some people to edit their source, so I'm not
> currently planning that. Even if I do think it's a gross overkill
> for this particular package to be using it in the first place.
I think your view is way too narrow.
I'm a developer. As well as hacking on libsndfile, I also hack on
libogg and libvorbis (I have SVN commit access). While hacking on
these I often install the current SVN versions in my home directory,
and then test other packages compiling against my home dir versions.
With pkg-config the above scenario works perfectly and I don't have
to un-install the Debian versions (and all the programs that depend
on them). Most importantly I don't have to hack my configure.ac
just to test an alternate version of the library. The pkg-config
solution also works really well for cross compiling:
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/CodeHacking/MinGWCross/pkg-config.html
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/CodeHacking/MinGWCross/cross_compiling.html
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/CodeHacking/MinGWCross/cross_compiling_2.html
I should mention here that I release pre-compiled win32 and win64
binaries for libsndfile on my web site. These binaries (including
support for Ogg/Vorbis and FLAC) are cross-compiled from a Debian
system and the test suite for the win32 version is run under Wine
(which does not yet support win64 binaries).
I released the first version of libsndfile in 1998 targeted mainly
at Linux systems (it now runs on just aboue everything). I've seen a
lot of change and I can tell you that no solution to the above
problems has ever worked as well as pkg-config.
Just because *you* don't see a use for pkg-config doesn't mean that
it isn't valuable to anyone else.
> On any system with a functional linker and properly installed libraries
> (ie. every Debian system), ALL you need for this library is '-logg'.
> That's it.
That is true if and only if you are targeting Debian at end users.
I chose Debian because it was a good development system. I need to
be able to point my compiles at other versions of libogg with
minimal fuss and bother. pkg-config lets me (and many others) do
that.
> If you want to use Big Hammer infrastructure, designed for
> horrors like gtk dependencies, and a more complex incantation to get
> that, then that's your choice. But you don't _need_ any of those things
> to use this library.
So how do you suggest I test more recent versions of libogg or libvorbis?
How do you suggest I cross compile for windows or even for arm-linux.
Regards,
Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
