28 Aug
2018
28 Aug
'18
7:37 p.m.
Am Dienstag, 28. August 2018 16:37 CEST, David Runge <dave(a)sleepmap.de> schrieb:
On 2018-08-27 21:23:47 (+0200), Christopher Arndt
wrote:
You seem to confuse two things here: pkgconf, the api compatible alternative to
pkg-config, and
pkgconf, the name of the program that provides pkg-config information to shell scripts and
makefiles.
Since pkgconf's sole purpose is the replacement of the original pkg-config
implementation giving the
binary a different name seems questionable.
It's like writing a make-replacement and calling it murks and then expect the rest of
the world to
change their build systems. That takes a lot of hubris/ego ...
Am 26.08.18 um 14:49 schrieb Ralf Mattes:
I
don't.
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2018 13:07 CEST, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>
schrieb:
I seem to have both pkgconf and pkg-config, and
on Archlinux both
are even provided by the same package.
I used pkgconf as suggested by an Archlinux packager. Don't know
if this is the best choice to support other distros.
No, it's not. > Anyway, all that is required is
-I/usr/include/freetype2 and maybe
> that is what I should use.
Please don't.
Agree on both accounts. Just use 'pkg-config' like everybody else. pkgconf [1] is a valid replacement of pkg-config (by
implementing it
with even more features and better .pc handling) and available on many,
if not all, distros (e.g. [2] [3] [4]). In some it is even the default
by now.
And they call the binary 'pkgconf'? I' impressed.
Additionally, this is all better, than relying on a
convenience layer
hack job, such as the `freetype-config` script (that should've never
even been part of pkg-config to begin with).
Who was talking about freetype-config?
Cheers, RalfD