Hi Jacob,
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:04:31PM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has used its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most systems use just one or two installation prefixes.
Absolutely.
But the point is that pkg-config is supposed to help with parallel installs, and it most certainly does not!
come on Gary, libtool is supposed to make building libraries more portable, but it is simply _broken_ for some systems at any given time, because the libtool team simply does not have the time to check that every change does not break on any systems. so you end up having someone who finds the brokenness and sends in patches.
That is very true.
think about it.
you can either improve the interaction between pkg-confg and libtool in a positive and constructive manner, or you can just blame pkg-config.
I didn't mean to be uselessly negative about pkg-config, I was (am) just frustrated with its flaws. But, irrespective of that, the bottom line is that what I want to do (the long scenario I described earlier in the thread) can be much easier than it is with current pkg-config. And of course I would like to fix that, by the simplest means available. At first I thought that would be to absorb pkg-config's functionality into libtool (to avoid duplication of code and maintenance), but as you and others have pointed out, the better way is to make it easier for pkg-config to get the information it needs with libtool's help (where it is available).
I'd love to help make that happen.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
