no that's non-sense :) call me a crazy, call me stupid, but i won't dirty my clean readable premake files with that "for developers on steroid" line.
i don't even know if i should add lash support at all in my applications anymore... :D lou On 8/9/07, Thomas Kuther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Do, 09.08.07 21:00 "kRAkEn/gORe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think at it will be better to follow gimpel's advice. You must > > > modify your build system to work with pkgconfig. This will work > > > with any distribution. > > > > > > To make a symlink in lash ebuild in order to solve a problem with a > > > buggy xyz build system is not a fix but a workaround -- a bad > > > workaround in fact. And this will work only in gentoo. > > > > i see the point, but i don't use makefiles directly (i mainly use > > premake... sure could be done the same...). anyway ubuntu for example > > doesn't have that lash-1.0 subdirectory when it install the package in > > the system (maybe i've encountered an illuminated packager ? who > > knows). > > > > > I have no reference on how to implement pkgconfig in Makefile.am and > > > configure.ac. > > > > me neither. anyway i can live with a symlink. all the world outside is > > expecting to found those libs there, and i'm doing the same (since > > most people downloading jost are from ubuntu and not gentoo). > > furthermore, a typical gentoo user can sure turn around the problem > > easily :) > > > > thanx for the explanation > > > > lucio > > Can't you simply add a `pkg-config --cflags lash-1.0` to the compiler > command? That outputs the correct include path to look for <lash/lash.h> > in. Then any distro is happy. > > No idea why ubuntu/debian does that, they also have to fix the > lash-1.0.pc file then - that's quite a nonsense. The packager isn't > illuminated, he's masochistic - and he invites devs to do it the > wrong way imho :P </joke> > > Cheers > >
