[Gc] Re: Building on OS X: Autotools vs pkg-config issues
bruce.mitchener at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 23:34:19 PST 2012
Meant to reply-all ...
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...
More information about the Gc