David Jensen wrote:
> Is there a downside to building pkgconfig with --enable-indirect-deps?
> If it is just compile/link *time* efficiency, lets add it to the book.
>
David, thanks for diging that up. So far, this is two complaining
packages, there are bound to be more, not to mention old vers
David Jensen wrote:
Is there a downside to building pkgconfig with
--enable-indirect-deps? If it is just compile/link *time* efficiency,
lets add it to the book.
It's a pita adding all the PKGCONFIG_MODULES to gtkmm applications and
libraries.
After reviewing the pkgconfig Changelog. I s
DJ Lucas wrote:
Hey guys, just a note to make ya'll aware of something that I ran across
with OOo. pkg-config as of .17 does not include implicit
dependenciesIOW, 'PKGCONFIG_MODULES=gtk-2.0' does not imply glib-2.0
by default. This behaviour can be changed at build time only. So far,
I've
On Son, 2005-06-05 at 14:42 -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Hey guys, just a note to make ya'll aware of something that I ran across
> with OOo. pkg-config as of .17 does not include implicit
> dependenciesIOW, 'PKGCONFIG_MODULES=gtk-2.0' does not imply glib-2.0
> by default. This behaviour can be c
David Jensen wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
> I did bang my head on this, I don't program much but I have seen build
> errors on my own projects where pango, atk and gdk are not implied. If
> you could expound on this, please do!
>
> --
> David Jensen
>
Yep, take a look at
http://www.linuxfromscrat
DJ Lucas wrote:
Hey guys, just a note to make ya'll aware of something that I ran across
with OOo. pkg-config as of .17 does not include implicit
dependenciesIOW, 'PKGCONFIG_MODULES=gtk-2.0' does not imply glib-2.0
by default. This behaviour can be changed at build time only. So far,
I've
Hey guys, just a note to make ya'll aware of something that I ran across
with OOo. pkg-config as of .17 does not include implicit
dependenciesIOW, 'PKGCONFIG_MODULES=gtk-2.0' does not imply glib-2.0
by default. This behaviour can be changed at build time only. So far,
I've only seen it with
