Re: PKG_CHECK_MODULES on system without pkg-config installed?

[Roger Leigh]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:38:16AM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jef Driesen <address@hidden>wrote:
> 
> >
> > address@hidden wrote:
> > > Jef Driesen  writes:
> > >> Isn't it easier to just check for the presence of the header file and/or
> > >> the library file, avoiding pkg-config entirely?
> > >
> > > Well, I'd prefer not to guess when possible, and not using pkg-config
> > > for a package that wants you to use it means you end up guessing at the
> > > proper locations/settings. Maybe this often works, but why risk it when
> > > it's not necessary?
> >
> > I'm aware of the advantage of using pkg-config. I even supply the *.pc
> > files for my own projects. But the point is that if I want to support
> > systems that don't have pkg-config installed (like Mac OS X in my case), I
> > have to provide a fallback with manual detection anyway. So why not skip
> > pkg-config entirely?
> >
> 
> You also have to support static linking.

This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?

We go through great pains to support it, but I can't even remember the
last time I even /tried/ to link something statically.  Maybe 2001?
I do like to support pkg-config in my packages, but I don't do it for
the static linking support.  Is the gain actually worth the effort?
Is static linking support actually tested regularly in most packages?
(I suspect very much not.)


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature