[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: Matt Rice
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:31:53 -0800
User-agent: GNUMail (Version 1.2.0)

On 2007-02-10 05:20:45 -0800 Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:

Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Matt Rice <address@hidden> writes:

On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn <address@hidden> wrote:
So next I tried to download pkg-config version 0.21 and compile it
MS Windows). Of course that failed because I hadn't installed glib.
I gave up.  (I tried once to get glib compiled on windows and it
wasn't a pleasant experience.)

It does not require anything but a reasonably well working C compiler
and a C library,
but can use an installed glib if that is present.

Well, did you actually try compiling pkg-config? I did not investigate deeply but the suggested way of compiling:


Did not work.  ./configure succeeded splendidly, but make
failed and the reason was that glib.h could not be found.

But I don't want to start a discussion in the GNUstep mailing lists on how to install pkg-config. I just wanted to see how it would work on windows.

Second, I like the idea of using more standard tools in the GNUstep
configuration and compilation process. pkg-config could come in rather
nicely here. But I don't quite understand, how it could be used as a
replacement for GNUstep.conf. Not that I like the role GNUstep.conf is
currently playing in GNUstep, but this is clearly different from what
pkg-config is normally doing. GNUstep.conf is a file that gets accessed
each time a GNUstep application is run to find out about the various
GNUstep settings. It is there to allow GNUstep installations to be moved to arbitrary places after compilation. pkf-config is by its intention a
compile time tool. It looks for include paths and libraries and such
stuff. It is not supposed to be around when a compiled application or
libraries is run.

Yes, someone pointed out the gnustep.pc and GNUstep.conf files
duplicate information, and then the discussion went to
gnustep libraries could also be tought to read gnustep.pc directly
without pkg-config to replace gnustep.conf, so we don't have to add a
runtime dependency but i admit, this is stretching pkg-config
and abnormal usage.

but personally I was fine with the duplicate information
as they do different things, gnustep.pc for compile time and
gnustep.conf for runtime.

actually most of this information was auxiliary and wasn't even
used by GNUstep-make only GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES was used.

I initially thought it was required, but it is not with Nicolas recent changes to svn.
but the rest should stay for things unable to use gnustep-make

Third, Nicola keeps on claiming in this thread that a standard GNUstep
could be compiled by just setting the values in GNUstep.conf and doing
nothing else. This does not work for me, I still need to source to get things working. Otherwise the compilation of gui
complains that it cannot find the base library. This is not too bad, I
am used to this behaviour. I just wanted to scale back some claims made

I actually haven't tried this but i assume you set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES?
I don't believe Nicola actually said that, he said you don't have to source, only set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES.

I'd assume you must have set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES otherwise i'd expect
it to bail out before including common.make... strange

Last, I would expect that a standard GNUstep should even run without a
GNUstep.conf file being set up. It may be easier for people who love to
move things to have a template file that they only need to change. But
do we really have to install this template already?

not sure about this one

reply via email to

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