Re: [Gc] Re: Building on OS X: Autotools vs pkg-config issues
ivmai at mail.ru
Fri Mar 2 23:13:28 PST 2012
Is my understanding correct that you don't have problems with pre-generated configure (distributed in "release" branch and tar-balls)?
I'm not an expert in autotools - could somebody else express the opinion? (May be, Petter Urkedal's could.)
I'm really not excited about downgrading AC_PREREQ (we already did it from 2.64 to 2.63 and use suggest move to 2.61).
PS. Cygwin autotools fails to process configure.ac too but build is done w/o problems (provided you have generated configure).
02 03 2012, 09:48 Bruce Mitchener <bruce.mitchener at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Bruce Mitchener
> <bruce.mitchener at gmail.com>wrote:
> > Hello,
> > It would be really nice if Boehm could build out of the box on Mac OS X
> > without having to install updated autotools and pkg-config. A quick check
> > seems to show that it could work with the version of autotools shipped on
> > OS X, with the exception of the usage of pkg-config.
> > One fix would be to put a copy of pkg.m4 in bdwgc/m4/ next to the
> > gc_set_version.m4 and distribute that yourself. With that and changing the
> > AC_PREREQ to use 2.61 for both the GC and libatomic_ops, things appear to
> > work. There's an argument to be made that shipping pkg.m4 here is bad, but
> > the current situation also seems a bit bad.
> > Another fix might be to not use pkg-config or to support some way of not
> > using it, but that seems like more work.
> > Is there another way that we could get this to where it works out of the
> > box on a roughly out of the box XCode installation?
> An alternative here would be to just do a classic autoconf check against
> --with-libatomic-ops=/path/to/installation/prefix and touch up CFLAGS /
> LIBS accordingly. That'd remove the dependency on PKG_CHECK_MODULES and add
> maybe 20 lines of autoconf hackery. (Other people / libraries can still
> use pkg-config to find Boehm / libatomic_ops, just that the Boehm
> configuration process wouldn't use it.)
> - Bruce
> > The background for this is that in Open Dylan (http://opendylan.org/), we
> > have various build / packaging issues where we'd rather just pull in Boehm
> > via a git submodule and do our own build as part of our build system to
> > make sure that everything is correctly configured and then link to the
> > static library. But we don't require newer autotools or pkg-config, so
> > this is a bit of an issue for us in terms of developer usability.
> > Thoughts?
More information about the Gc