Re: [autoconf] Re: pkg-config wisdom

[mpsuzuki]

Although pkg-config is useful in some cases, I agree with
others' negative evaluation against the idea to builtin
pkg-config support of autoconf. I want autoconf to keep
the library detection without pkg-config.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:48:30 +0800
Tim Post <address@hidden> wrote:
>I have experienced many issues using pkg-config. Most of the issues
>stemmed from users compiling and installing their own libraries, where
>one (or more) of the following happens:

The most popular scenario I think is: the pkg-config
itself is bundled to the system (/usr/bin/pkg-config etc)
but the users install their own libraries to non-system
directory (e.g. /usr/local/xxx), and the users slipped
to set PKG_CONFIG_PATH manually.

>* Their custom built library is not used, the system's is.

Indeed. It might be popular when default pkg-config prefix
is differnt from the prefix that users install their own
libraries. Have you experienced the troubles that pkg-config
in configure process detects the correct location of custom
built library but the system's is used in building process?

>* pkg-config did not locate an installed library, due to the library not
>installing the files that pkg-config needs to work

I'm not sure if this trouble is popular. It sounds as if
the author of Makefile.in (or Makefile.am) slipped to
add (or break) appropriate target to install xxx.pc files,
or install to wrong directory that pkg-config does not
search.

>Additionally, you will encounter additional problems on systems ~3 years
>old, of which many are still in production.

Indeed.

Regards,
mpsuzuki