Harlan Stenn
2018-10-27 23:42:52 UTC
pkg-conf offers the following ways to get "link flags":
--libs All link flags
--libs-only-L The -L/-R stuff
--libs-only-l The -l stuff
--static Output ilbraries suitable for static linking
and then says the union of -only-L and -only-l may be smaller than the
output of -libs because the latter might include flags like -rdynamic.
We're already having to parse the output of pkg-config to try and
separate LDADD stuff from LDFLAGS stuff, And this is before we start to
address static v. dynamic things.
This is because we really don't want -L stuff in LDADD, because we end
up with things like:
No rule to make: -L /usr/local/lib
(or something).
The autoconf macro PKG_CHECK_MODULES hasn't been all that helpful to us.
What's a good way to deal with this?
One could say that pkg-conf could be doing a better job. But even if it
does, this would still require the folks who write the .pc files to do a
better job of specifying their contents.
Until we can expect .pc files to have proper content, I suspect we're
going to need to have better smarts in autoconf/automake.
But this will also require some better info about exactly how to do
this, and it MIGHT be useful to augment PKG_CHECK_MODULES.
Does anybody have some good/complete example cases for this?
What's a good way to evolve this?
--libs All link flags
--libs-only-L The -L/-R stuff
--libs-only-l The -l stuff
--static Output ilbraries suitable for static linking
and then says the union of -only-L and -only-l may be smaller than the
output of -libs because the latter might include flags like -rdynamic.
We're already having to parse the output of pkg-config to try and
separate LDADD stuff from LDFLAGS stuff, And this is before we start to
address static v. dynamic things.
This is because we really don't want -L stuff in LDADD, because we end
up with things like:
No rule to make: -L /usr/local/lib
(or something).
The autoconf macro PKG_CHECK_MODULES hasn't been all that helpful to us.
What's a good way to deal with this?
One could say that pkg-conf could be doing a better job. But even if it
does, this would still require the folks who write the .pc files to do a
better job of specifying their contents.
Until we can expect .pc files to have proper content, I suspect we're
going to need to have better smarts in autoconf/automake.
But this will also require some better info about exactly how to do
this, and it MIGHT be useful to augment PKG_CHECK_MODULES.
Does anybody have some good/complete example cases for this?
What's a good way to evolve this?
--
Harlan Stenn <***@ntp.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!
Harlan Stenn <***@ntp.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!