On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:16:10PM +0000, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Am Montag 10 Dezember 2007 schrieb Michael Poole: > > Stephen Gran writes: > > > This one time, at band camp, Michael Poole said: > > >> What happens for a user who (however absurd or insane he might be to > > >> try this with gtk+) tries to link his application statically? > > >> > > >> Perhaps the "absurd and wrong" part is that pkg-config does not > > >> provide a way to distinguish between use cases, and that the name for > > >> the current behavior should also be --static-libs rather than --libs, > > >> but there is a good reason to provide the transitive closure of > > >> dependencies for a package *somewhere* in pkg-config. > > > > > > That is supported in pkg-config, but no upstream I've ever met seems to > > > understand it yet. > > > > Ah, I see. I overlooked the --static flag to pkg-config because (case > > in point) "pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0" only misses seven of the > > libraries that the --static version uses. I would guess this is > > because "Requires.private" is not mentioned in the pkg-config man > > page. At least on my system, Libs.private seems to be used correctly > > by most or all .pc files, but Requires.private use is spotty. > > The flaw in the documentation is surely the part to blame here. > Requires.Private works but is not mentioned anywhere. Neither is the --static > option in the SYNOPSIS part of the man page. > Not many use undocumented stuff. You're kidding ? If someone that produces libraries stop at the SYNOPSIS section while reading documentation, he's a moron. The pkg-config tool has a very concise documentation that says it all, --static is documented in the OPTIONS section, and Requires, Libs, Libs.private in METADATA FILE SYNTAX where due. Calling it undocumented is just either bad faith or well, I can't see what else it can be in fact. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpO5mvW32ndF.pgp
Description: PGP signature