| 1 |
On 29/11/12 14:16, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> again, even if there are corner cases which cannot be dealt with in a |
| 4 |
> different way... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> having an eclass function like the mentioned one is bad, cause it |
| 7 |
> suggests that this is a way to fix things. It's not. Application |
| 8 |
> developers running gentoo might think "oh great, there is a pkgconfig |
| 9 |
> file for this, so I can use it in my Makefile". Then a Fedora packager |
| 10 |
> comes across this package and realizes a compile failure until he |
| 11 |
> notices the build system is calling for a pkgconfig file that cannot be |
| 12 |
> found anywhere. So he contacts this developer and asks which distro he |
| 13 |
> is using. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Standard autotools based packages always use |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
--with-blas= |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
so it is pretty simple for us to make it to |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
--with-blas="$(pkg-config --libs blas)" |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
same thing goes for cmake and |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-DBLAS_LIBRARIES="$(pkg-config --libs blas)" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This game has been played since ever, because blas/lapack are bundled in |
| 28 |
more then 80% of the packages using it. So we are used to patch them to |
| 29 |
use system libs. So why not making our lives easier by having a |
| 30 |
pkg-config option? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
justin |
Archives