Re: Use of config.h: summary of responses.

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Thomas Dickey wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:40, Dale Mellor wrote:
> > > For the record...
> > >
> > >    I recieved about half a dozen responses to this and the overriding
> > > message is: config.h is worse than useless for packages which install
> > > libraries and public header files, so don't use it
> >
> > That's FUD.
> >
> > The essence is: Don't install config.h headers. They are not designed
> > nor supposed to be installed. If you nevertheless insist on installing
> > then, you are on your own.
>
> Since the topic comes up regularly, and the knee-jerk response from
> regulars on this list is always some variation on the above, it's fairly
> apparent that there is no intention on their part to resolve the problem.

The fact of the matter is that some/many libraries have header files 
which are OS/CPU/compiler dependent and there has to be a way to 
record/work-around these dependencies so that the library headers work 
right.  This way is commonly known as 'config.h'.

The Autoconf folks have done little/nothing to provide the configure 
script author with a really easy way to build a non-conflicting 
configuration header.  There are often references to macro packages 
outside of autoconf which rename all defines so that they are no 
longer compatible with the the package source code.  In order to make 
use of them, you must be willing to alter almost every source 
file/header in your package.

As for myself, I find that installing a trimmed-down configuration 
header which only includes the definitions required for the headers to 
work correctly is the best choice.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen