thomas at wsinnovations.com
Sun Apr 1 16:11:28 PDT 2012
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?
I think this has allot of potential use for slightly different reasons.
Circular dependencies are something to avoid, but are not insurmountable
obstacles. On the other hand, dependencies that are not ported to a given
platform is a much greater challenge. 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.
I've have been working on a hopefully soon to be announced build tool that
relies extensively on pkg-config. For the sake of portability, I have even
contemplated reimplementing a subset of pkg-config. Instead I look forward
to trying some of those niche platforms out again with pkg-config-lite.
To me, ideas like pkg-config help to move us past the shell script hackery
of yesterday. The less portable and "buildable" pkg-config itself is
though, the less it helps such a cause.
More information about the pkg-config