lrn1986 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 17:37:42 PDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 02.04.2012 3:11, Thomas Stover wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:51:10 +0100, Oliver Lange
> <bloody at bloody.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> pkg-config 0.26 without glib dependency:
>> Maybe you want to check this out. It shows how little code from
>> glib is required by pkg-config. It has no dependencies (other
>> than libc).
>> Changes are minor and maybe you'd like to take over?
> In my opinion Glib is awesome, and something I use extensively.
> However, supporting obsolete and esoteric development targets is
> not one of its strengths. While certainly not a "front burner
> issue" there are still plenty of us that work with older and less
> common platforms. When complex things like glib need to be ported
> just to get a build system working in order to then port less
> complex projects, a measure of elegance has been lost.
Well, a "correct" solution for this problem is to work with GLib devs
on introducing some kind of platform-dependence optionality mechanics
That is, if a particular piece of functionality requires porting (i.e.
calls native API or CRT functions that may vary significantly across
platforms), it should be possible to not to compile it. GLib does have
quite a lot of code that only requires basic CRT (for example - most
containers are like that, as well as some string operations).
That way you'll be able to compile a stripped version of GLib that has
as little platform-dependent things as you can possibly get, and use
that version to compile basic tools (probably - compile statically,
since you might want to later compile full GLib, and wouldn't want it
to conflict with the stripped-down version).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the pkg-config