| Summary: | replacement for sdl-config | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | SDL | Reporter: | MatÄ›j TÃ½Ä <matej.tyc> |
| Component: | build | Assignee: | Ryan C. Gordon <icculus> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | Sam Lantinga <slouken> |
| Severity: | minor | ||
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | HG 2.0 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
|
Description
MatÄ›j TýÄ
2009-09-22 08:03:21 UTC
I'm trying to support both systems equally, since they're both used about equally. Is there a specific bug that you'd like to fix? If you're generally interested in improving the .pc files, you might want to talk to SDL package maintainers on verious distributions and see if there are changes they've made that would be generally useful for everyone... What I was trying to say was that your .pc file is sdl.pc, whereas most others would probably use libSDL.pc (notice the case) You can see that there are lots of lib*.pc files in the /usr/lib/pkgconfig directory. But that is not really substantial when I think about it. What I consider as far more important is lack of instructions on how to check for your library by people using it. This is more of a documentation and web issue, though. But you probably won't like the state when some of developers use sdl-config script, others pkg-config and others just rely on the library name. You probably want free hands regarding library names and you don't want to maintain sdl-config and AM_PATH_SDL. I would advise you to promote pkg-config, it is easy to maintain and pretty much a standard now. I think that the "how to check for SDL" subject is actually a FAQ that rarely anybody bothers to ask explicitly since one typically needs just a solution that works now and one doesn't care if it is robust or not. Ah yes, I'll add that to the new FAQ we're building. I think I'll stick with recommending sdl.m4 and AM_PATH_SDL because SDL is used on a lot of platforms that don't have pkg-config by default. But I'll also mention that you can use pkg-config alone (and more easily) if you're only planning to release your software for recent Linux systems. Oh, regarding the name of the file, we'll revisit that when we handle the larger issue of installing SDL 1.3 and coexisting with SDL 1.2 in a distribution. OK then, if you are decided to stick with sdl-config, sdl.m4 macro and maintain them, then please try to make sure that it will play nicely with cross-compilation. Currently, if you try to cross-compile with it, it says "cross compiling; assumed OK..." although it is not OK :-) I think that Fedora guys could help you with that, they have put a lot of effort to create a cross-compiling environment, so maybe they have some patches or experience you can use. For autotools users, using a working macro is a much better option than pkg-config. Someone has asked a question on a autoconf's mailing list, you may be interested: http://www.nabble.com/Checking-for-a-library-...-different-ways-...-td20128711.html |