Re: [Boost-cmake] Configuration for sonames for the boost dynamic libraries on Unix

Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Configuration for sonames for the boost dynamic libraries on Unix
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-28 17:03:29

Ingmar Vanhassel wrote:

> Excerpts from troy d. straszheim's message of Wed Oct 28 21:23:26 +0100 2009:
>> 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
>> >>> using
>> >>> 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?
> 
> You don't need pkg-config at all to generate a pkg-config file, you need
> it to use the file, ie when building packages that want to find boost
> via pkg-config
> 
> Something like this would generate boost.pc from boost.pc.cmake when
> building boost. (Note: From memory, I'm not looking at boost-cmake.git
> atm)
> 
> CMakeLists.txt:
> ---
> configure_file(${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/boost.pc.cmake
> ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/boost.pc
> @ONLY)
> install(FILES ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/boost.pc
> DESTINATION ${CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX}/lib${LIB_SUFFIX}/pkgconfig)
> ---
> 
> then a boost.pc.cmake:
> ---
> prefix=@CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@
> exec_prefix=@CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@
> libdir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@/lib_at_LIB_SUFFIX@
> includedir=@CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@/include/boost
> 
> Name: Boost
> Description: Description about Boost
> Version: @BOOST_VERSION@
> Libs:
> Cflags:
> ----
> 
> Or maybe one .pc file per library. Not sure

One .pc per library will surely be better -- as it won't require neither
linking to all .so files nor creating one 'meta' boost.so library. However,
IIUC, if we have multiple .pc files, then we'll have multiple

        -I @CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@/include/boost

options if a project uses more than one .pc file. Is there a way to
workaround this?

- Volodya

>