Re: Dependencies of -dev packages
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > Unless packages ship the pkg-config binary itself. Even then, the Debian
> > mode could be dependent on dpkg-architecture existing or somesuch, so people
> > could still use Debian as upstream developers without hassle.
>
> I do not think pkg-config should call dpkg-architecture. Instead I think
> of something like this:
It doesn't need to. It needs to have a way to be told which arch to use.
*Debian* build scripts need to make sure that they tell pkg-config to use
the arch given by dpkg-architecture. We shall see which way is better, I'd
much rather do it autoconf style, which seems to be what you prefer (the
--arch option).
> - the selected architecture is passed to the build system (--host=
> argument to 'configure', parameter to 'make' etc.)
Is not --host only. Just for the record. autotools-dev README has the full
details. But otherwise, I agre with you.
> Don't forget that threre are regular users building their own stuff
I never do. Nor do I forget about upstream development done in Debian boxes.
> I think many of the past & present problems with autotools (like the
> -rpath issue, or too much dependencies in .la files) come from the fact
Those are mostly libtool issues, and libtool is a slow moving beast :(
autoconf isn't, but people refuse to fix their build systems or upgrade to
newest versions, so there will be a lot of shouting soon (we may have to
outlaw old libtool crap in Debian, and that immediately means all that
bitrot needs to be ported to latest autoconf (for libtool), and if it uses
automake, to a recent automake as well (because old automake does not talk
to libtool or new autoconf either).
> that autotools were created with these users in mind and little thought
> was given for distribution-makers.
That is certainly true about libtool. Not so for automake or autoconf.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: