Re: pkg-config wisdom

[Tim Post]

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 12:28 +1100, Russell Shaw wrote:
> William Pursell wrote:
> > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >> pkg-config is broken because it checks for the existance of libraries,
> >> and not for the features that are required for the program to run.
> >>
> > 
> > It does not even check for the existence of libraries.
> > It checks for the existence of a .pc file and assumes
> > that the user (or administrator) has supplied the correct
> > information.
> 
> It would be useful to have a note in the autoconf manual about
> pkg-config, why it exists, and what problems it has. I've wondered
> for years about it, and have used it a bit. I haven't found any
> authoritive discussion about it other than random posts if one
> gets lucky. I might know a bit more now, but a lot of others
> don't. I still don't know why pkg-config exists, except that
> it seems to avoid autoconfery, which many don't grok.

If you are writing a script to install a bunch of things on dissimilar
systems that you _know_ support pkg-config (and well), its a great tool
and very useful to system administrators.

The question is if its capable enough to assist in configuring a sane
build. In many cases, it is not, unless the software is written for
specific, modern systems.

I don't claim to be authoritative on the topic, however. I'm just
someone who ran into a bit of frustration while attempting to use it.

Cheers,
--Tim


-- 
Monkey + Typewriter = Echoreply ( http://echoreply.us )