Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Matt Rice]

On 2007-02-10 05:20:45 -0800 Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:

> Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
> > Matt Rice <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn <address@hidden> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > So next I tried to download pkg-config version 0.21 and compile it
> > > > (on
> > > > MS Windows). Of course that failed because I hadn't installed glib.
> > > > So
> > > > I gave up.  (I tried once to get glib compiled on windows and it
> > > > wasn't a pleasant experience.)
> > > It does not require anything but a reasonably well working C 
> > > compiler
> > > and a C library,
> > > but can use an installed glib if that is present.
> >
> > Well, did you actually try compiling pkg-config?  I did not 
> > investigate 
> > deeply but the suggested way of compiling:
> >
> > ./configure
> > make
> >
> > Did not work.  ./configure succeeded splendidly, but make
> > failed and the reason was that glib.h could not be found.
> >
> > But I don't want to start a discussion in the GNUstep mailing lists 
> > on
> > how to install pkg-config.   I just wanted to see how it would work 
> > on 
> > windows.

> Second, I like the idea of using more standard tools in the GNUstep
> configuration and compilation process. pkg-config could come in rather
> nicely here. But I don't quite understand, how it could be used as a
> replacement for GNUstep.conf. Not that I like the role GNUstep.conf is
> currently playing in GNUstep, but this is clearly different from what
> pkg-config is normally doing. GNUstep.conf is a file that gets 
> accessed
> each time a GNUstep application is run to find out about the various
> GNUstep settings. It is there to allow GNUstep installations to be 
> moved
> to arbitrary places after compilation. pkf-config is by its intention 
> a
> compile time tool. It looks for include paths and libraries and such
> stuff. It is not supposed to be around when a compiled application or
> libraries is run.

Yes, someone pointed out the gnustep.pc and GNUstep.conf files
duplicate information, and then the discussion went to
gnustep libraries could also be tought to read gnustep.pc directly
without pkg-config to replace gnustep.conf, so we don't have to add a
runtime dependency but i admit, this is stretching pkg-config
and abnormal usage.

but personally I was fine with the duplicate information
as they do different things, gnustep.pc for compile time and
gnustep.conf for runtime.

actually most of this information was auxiliary and wasn't even
used by GNUstep-make only GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES was used.

I initially thought it was required, but it is not with Nicolas recent 
changes to svn.
but the rest should stay for things unable to use gnustep-make

> Third, Nicola keeps on claiming in this thread that a standard GNUstep
> could be compiled by just setting the values in GNUstep.conf and doing
> nothing else. This does not work for me, I still need to source
> GNUstep.sh to get things working. Otherwise the compilation of gui
> complains that it cannot find the base library. This is not too bad, I
> am used to this behaviour. I just wanted to scale back some claims 
> made
> here.

I actually haven't tried this but i assume you set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES?
I don't believe Nicola actually said that, he said you don't have to 
source
GNUstep.sh, only set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES.

I'd assume you must have set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES otherwise i'd expect
it to bail out before including common.make... strange

> Last, I would expect that a standard GNUstep should even run without a
> GNUstep.conf file being set up. It may be easier for people who love 
> to
> move things to have a template file that they only need to change. But
> do we really have to install this template already?

not sure about this one