Re: Development packages.
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> > pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we
>> > have some hope of getting these things right in the near future;
>> > pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between
>> > static and shared libs, so can't be taught to handle them differently
>> > without a lot of growing pains. Please don't add pkg-config to packages
>> > that don't already have the misfortune of using it!
>
>> I've got half a mind, if pkg-config upstream haven't shown any signs of
>> activity once I've finished fighting my current battles to start
>> developing it further myself.
>
>> Giving it some idea of what's a dependency library and what's a 2nd (or
>> even 3rd) level dependency would be nice, along with some "I'm linking
>> statically" and "I'm cross-compiling" logic.
>
> From what I can tell, the .pc files already contain enough information
> to distinguish between direct and indirect dependencies.
If you were to take libs specified in the .pc, and those directly
Required by it, that should be the minimum.
Better still, you could just take "pkg-config --libs", and then
manually construct the dependency tree. You can then just include the
root(s) of however many unique dependency trees you find.
Since pkg-config is already an ELF executable, there's no reason why
it can't do it directly when you use --libs. The only issue I see is
distinguishing between normal (dynamic) linking and static linking
(where the old behaviour is still required).
Scott, if you do find the time to look at this, I would be ecstatic!
If you don't have the time, I'll try to fit it in myself, since this
is my main peeve with pkg-config.
Regards,
Roger
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Reply to: