Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ah. thats different. thats an m4 macro that probably calls pkg-config
> and handles failure. that doesn't mean pkg-config itself can handle it.
>
No, pkg-config itself definitely does ask a set of legacy *-config
scripts for results if it can't find .
>> I hope you are joking here. Forking gtk-config would be a really
>> evil hack. If that's indeed what pkg-config does, a crash is what
>> you deserve.
>>
>
>It allows you to use PKG_CHECK_MODULES with the GNOME 1 platform. It's
>kind of a cheesy special case, but there's nothing broken about i
Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hope you are joking here. Forking gtk-config would be a really
> evil hack. If that's indeed what pkg-config does, a crash is what
> you deserve.
>
It allows you to use PKG_CHECK_MODULES with the GNOME 1 platform. It's
kind of a cheesy special case
>0.8 should have this. I'm pretty sure it was there almost from the
>start, even before 0.8.
>
>What error do you get?
>
>If you "strace -f" is there any fork/exec of gtk-config going on?
it doesn't fork/exec it, doesn't open it, stat it, read it or mmap it.
--p
Hi,
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> i sincerely hope that in a future release of the 1.2 series,
> > >> pkg-config gets added.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Note that pkg-config has some dubious
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> i sincerely hope that in a future release of the 1.2 series,
> >> pkg-config gets added.
> >>
> >
> >Note that pkg-config has some dubious "legacy hacks" in it - try
> >"pkg-config --cflags gtk" for examp
>
>Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> i sincerely hope that in a future release of the 1.2 series,
>> pkg-config gets added.
>>
>
>Note that pkg-config has some dubious "legacy hacks" in it - try
>"pkg-config --cflags gtk" for example.
which version? 0.8.0 just reports an error if i try
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i sincerely hope that in a future release of the 1.2 series,
> pkg-config gets added.
>
Note that pkg-config has some dubious "legacy hacks" in it - try
"pkg-config --cflags gtk" for example.
Havoc
___
gtk-l
>> the first one is deprecated, involves lots of ugly m4 macros, can
>> require disgusting filesystem hacking to deal with aclocal's stupid
>> design, and is basically in poor taste.
>
>that's nonsense. gtk-config is a simple bash script and no m4 macros
>are involved. You are probably confusing t
Hi,
Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >What is the different between these 2 methods:
> >
> >1. gcc -o myprog `gtk-config --cflags --libs` (GTK FAQ)
> >
> >2. cc `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0` myprog.c -o mypgrog (GTK+
> >Reference Manual)
as was already stated, the first is the
>What is the different between these 2 methods:
>
>1. gcc -o myprog `gtk-config --cflags --libs` (GTK FAQ)
>
>2. cc `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0` myprog.c -o mypgrog (GTK+
>Reference Manual)
the first one is deprecated, involves lots of ugly m4 macros, can
require disgusting filesystem h
AFAIK
1. is GTK+ 1.2 method
2. is GTK+ (1.3) 2.0 method
-Brad
Lin, Lynn wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> What is the different between these 2 methods:
>
> 1. gcc -o myprog `gtk-config --cflags --libs` (GTK FAQ)
>
> 2. cc `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0` myprog.c -o mypgrog (GTK+
> Reference
Hello there,
What is the different between these 2 methods:
1. gcc -o myprog `gtk-config --cflags --libs` (GTK FAQ)
2. cc `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0` myprog.c -o mypgrog (GTK+
Reference Manual)
Thank you :)
Lynn
___
gtk-list mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
