[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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]