Boost Interest :
Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Configuration for sonames for the boost dynamic libraries on Unix
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-28 16:23:26
Ingmar Vanhassel wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Chittenden's message of Wed Oct 28 21:08:19 +0100 2009:
>>>> Avoid pkg-config, it's very Linux and drags in a ton of dependencies
>>>> (most of the time, never required, but that's the way it goes with
>>>> everyone's packaging system of choice). A cmake variable would be
>>>> preferred, imo (similar to the cmake boost version foo). -sc
>>> So let's make pkg-config opt-in?
>> Totally, pkg-config is useful goodness. Use it if it's there, but not
>> make it the primary or only way.
>>> What ton of dependencies are you referring to?
>> At a minimum it currently requires the following to build (and their
>> subsequent dependencies):
>> gettext-0.17_1 gmake-3.81_3 libiconv-1.13.1
> I'm fairly sure you can --disable-nls to get rid of gettext & libiconv.
>>> How's it linuxy? Do you mean that it's not convenient on non-unix?
>> pkgconfig has a tendency to suck in other gnome projects due to its
>> gnome lineage. Ugh.
> If you're referring to its limited use of glib, you can disable this
> too, and it'll use an embedded copy of the few things it uses from glib.
> Not ideal, but workable.
>>> pkg-config is quite useful on linux distributions. I largely prefer
>>> pkg-config over going back to having a gazillion foo-config binaries.
>> I get the value of pkg-config, not arguing against it, just pointing
>> out that we have the necessary tools in place with cmake and that
>> cmake is well suited for solving this problem without adding
>> additional dependencies. :)
> Okay, then we don't really disagree. :-)
So none of these dependencies apply to us generating the file (s)
necessary for pkg-config, right? I'd assumed this would be as easy as
generating the file (with configure_file) and installing it to the right
place. Could somebody post a template config file and instructions on
where to install it?