On Thu, June 4, 2009 11:14, Johan Hake wrote: > On Thursday 04 June 2009 10:59:39 Johannes Ring wrote: >> On Thu, June 4, 2009 10:46, Johan Hake wrote: >> > [snip] >> > >> >> I don't have a problem with pkg-config being _the_ system, >> >> but the command line interface does not give that impression. >> >> It cannot be required that the user knows scons internals or takes >> >> even a casual glance at the implementation of the build system... >> > >> > True. >> > >> >> In particular, there is no mention of pkg-config in scons --help, >> >> README, or INSTALL, and the help messages do not suggest >> >> that they may be ignored if the wind comes from the north: >> >> withPetscDir: Specify path to PETSc ( /path/to/withPetscDir ) >> > >> > Also true. >> > >> >> If scons makes it hard to design the interface freely, why not >> >> have a separate script to generate selected pkg-config files? >> >> I don't care more for "scons configFoo" than >> >> "configure withFooDir=/here/I/am withBarDir=/here/I/am". >> >> >> >> Whatever solution is chosen, it must be possible to say >> >> explicitly that "hey, I want to use foolib from /bar/foolibdir, >> >> please make me a pkg-config file for that build and ignore >> >> any global defaults that you find". >> > >> > Ok, I can discuss it with Johannes and see if there are any good >> solution >> > for >> > this. >> > >> > Suggestion 1: >> > Trigger construction of a specific pkg-config file during compilation. >> > >> > scons configFoo configBar >> > >> > These options will come in addition to other options. Maybe more >> explicit >> > towards mentioning pkg-config >> > >> > scons generatePkgConfigFoo generatePkgConfigBar? >> > >> > Suggestion 2: >> > Put the generation of pkg-config files into a standalone script. >> > >> > generate-pkg-config Foo Bar >> > >> > Instead of generate-pkg-config-file we could for example have: >> > >> > dolfin-config, config? >> > >> > I think 1 integrates better with the present system. >> > >> > Any comments from the others? >> >> I like better suggestion 1, however, it should be possible to generate >> new >> pkg-config files whenever withFooDir=/path/to/foo is specified on the >> command line. Isn't that better? > > Maybee, less options is good. However as it is now this will then be > cached, > and scons will trigger the build each time.
No, we should be able to see if it is given on the command line or a cached option (see other post). > A solution that might work is to make that option uncachable. So whenever > withFooDir=/path/to/foo is explicitly used we try to generate a pkg-config > file. Anyhow that option is only used once, for building Foo's pkg-config > file (if not any others are found on the system :) ) so making it an > uncached > option would make sense. Yes, that is possible, but not necessary. > However it is not very logical that the construction of a pkg-config file > should be triggered when a directory is passed. Maybe not. Johannes _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev