[Gc] Re: Building on OS X: Autotools vs pkg-config issues

Bruce Mitchener bruce.mitchener at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 23:34:19 PST 2012


Meant to reply-all ...

 - Bruce

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Mitchener
<bruce.mitchener at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> Is my understanding correct that you don't have problems with
>> pre-generated configure (distributed in "release" branch and tar-balls)?
>>
>
> I wasn't aware of the release branch with the pre-generated configure!
>  That may well work, but it would still be nice to address the issues that
> I raised...
>
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> It doesn't seem like there are any benefits to the higher version and it
> seems unlikely that OS X will update from where they are now.  People
> needing the higher version are always free to use it...
>
> The problems with generating configure from configure.ac all stem from
> requiring pkg-config from what I can see.  But the only real use of
> pkg-config is find a pre-installed libatomic_ops.  That can be done, as I
> said, by doing --with-libatomic-ops=/path/to/prefix without too much pain.
>  I'm willing to submit a patch.
>
>
>> PS. Cygwin autotools fails to process configure.ac too but build is done
>> w/o problems (provided you have generated configure).
>>
>
> Is that the same issue with pkg-config or different?
>
>  - Bruce
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://napali.hpl.hp.com/pipermail/gc/attachments/20120303/f60f4647/attachment.htm


More information about the Gc mailing list