[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?
From: |
Andreas Jellinghaus |
Subject: |
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:46:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.6 |
On Monday 09 July 2007 23:40:35 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I don't think Libtool needs to provide a pkg-config file, but providing
> a macro to use an external libltdl, and having the macro set LTDLINCL
> and LIBLTDL (or other variables) correctly for use should work just
> fine.
debugging configure scripts it not very pleasent. as a result it is best
practice to use only as many macro packages as needed and use those that have
a history of working fine without problem.
I don't see what you would get by creating your own macro package, except the
benefit of calling the magic variables however you please - pkg-config would
use LIBLTDL_CFLAGS and LIBLTDL_LIBS for libltdl.pc. for someone who maintains
configure scripts and Makefiles, a common standard for these names is very
helpfull, and as pkg-config is supported by at least 100 libraries, so it is
the dominant force.
please also remember that you can do both, provide your own macro package and
provide a *.pc file. nothing prevents that. but it helps those who don't want
to get a job done fast - they can rely on the things they know and need not
to dive into the documentation and read a section about finding and linking
with ltdl.
so please reconsider providing a *.pc file as well.
Thank you.
Regards, Andreas
- normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/09
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/09
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/10
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/13
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/15
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/15