rawhide report: 20070912 changes
myfedora at richip.dhs.org
Thu Sep 13 15:25:40 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 17:08 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > What would the
> > alternative to pkgconfig .pc files then be?
> Passing CFLAGS and LIBS from the command line, like with any other
> package on this planet.
Where would dependent packages intending on developing with OSG 1 or 2
get the values for CFLAGS and LIBS, then? The whole point to doing
pkg-config is exactly so that developers wouldn't need to know where the
providing packages files are located, what flags it requires and what
libraries to link against. Granted some can be guessed due to Fedora's
layout restrictions, but wouldn't that be taking a step back in the
evolutionary process of development? Ultimately, the installed package
would know best what it requires and not dependent developers.
It was my impression that developers are moving towards pkg-config and
not away. Even gnome followed this process. At one point in time, all
the options had to be supplied to the "configure" script. Then they
provided gnome-config, probably patterned after pkg-config. Finally they
decided to settle on pkgconfig's standard. Even now with parallel
installs, they've decided to adopt the <pkgname>[-<version>].pc
More information about the fedora-devel-list