On Sun 17 Aug 2014 18:50:54 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2014, Wookey wrote:
> > It's not really "en vogue", it's historic: many of the things that
> > have their own *-config scripts are sufficiently old that they
> > pre-date pkg-config so are not doing this just to be annoying. At the
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014, Wookey wrote:
It's not really "en vogue", it's historic: many of the things that
have their own *-config scripts are sufficiently old that they
pre-date pkg-config so are not doing this just to be annoying. At the
time they didn't have much choice.
Sometimes it is also don
On Sat 16 Aug 2014 00:21:02 Wookey wrote:
> +++ John Spencer [2014-08-15 23:49 +0200]:
> > It seems it's "en vogue" for libs to ship their own broken
> > replacement rather than supplying a portable pkgconfig file...
> > the list is big, but these here are the most often used ones:
> > pcap-config,
> It seems it's "en vogue" for libs to ship their own broken
> replacement rather than supplying a portable pkgconfig file... the
> list is big, but these here are the most often used ones:
> pcap-config, pcre-config, freetype-config, apr-1-config,
> glib-config, gtk-config, ncursesw5-config, lib
+++ John Spencer [2014-08-15 23:49 +0200]:
> Hello!
>
> I'm currently in the process of adding cross-compilation support to
> a linux distribution, but I'm running into a lot of nasty issues.
>
> The #1 offender are proprietary pkg-config replacements, and there are many.
> They break cross-compi
