[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cope without xmkmf
From: |
Daniel Stone |
Subject: |
Re: Cope without xmkmf |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:06:48 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 03:22:51PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Attached are patches to add copies the X macros to xorg's util-macros
> package and add a method to search via pkg-config. This isn't ideal
> since it requires that the xorg macros are found to override the
> autoconf ones, but I couldn't find a satisfactory way to wedge in a
> pkg-config check to AC_PATH_X externally.
>
> This approach has the advantage that we still fallback on the xmkmf and
> direct approaches whether the xorg macros and pkg-config are available
> or not. However, in the case that the xorg macros are available, we can
> be smarter about using the X installation. It also makes sense that the
> X implementation control the autoconf macros governing its usage.
>
> Let me know what you think. I've cc'd the xorg list to see if this would
> be acceptable.
Hmm, it did seem reasonable to me, but the more I think about it, the
more I'm convinced that any macro we add should just DTRT with
pkg-config and who cares about all the legacy stuff. People who are
shipping xorg-path.m4 will almost certainly _not_ be shipping X11R4, or
even XFree86.
If anyone else wants to do their own implementation, they should be
providing pkg-config, as it's pretty much the only reasonable way. If
they don't feel like it, they could always provide their own
AC_PATH_X{,TRA} that DidTRT.
Cheers,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature