[CMake] Interresting dependency problem

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 28.09.07 03:23:01, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Freitag 28 September 2007 schrieb Brandon Van Every:
> > On 9/27/07, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > I'm reporting 2nd hand information from people that have long-time
> > > experience with pkg-config. Unfortunately I can't find the thread on the
> > > kde lists where Christian Ehrlicher pointed out the other issues with
> > > pkg-config, maybe I'll have a try with it tomorrow...
> >
> > Kudos to you for your diligence, but this is a waste of time.  I
> > looked at the sources today, and it's obvious from the READMEs and
> > Googling what the level of MSVC support really is.  It's designed
> > around gcc toolchains and Unix shells.  Have fun coaxing it to work
> > with MSVC and no Unix shell.  It may be doable, it may not be doable,
> > but it is certainly not widespread production practice so you're going
> > to take lumps.  I can't see why any CMake-oriented person would
> > recommend pkg-config unless they're stuck with it as a legacy concern.
> 
> And with a cmake centric solution, you create yet another dead-end unless you 
> propose cmake as the ultimate and only valid solution. If pkgconfig does not 
> currently cope well with plain win32, why did nobody bother to fix it instead 
> of damning it? At least it is a build-system-independent solution.

Maybe because of the way some Gnomies treat platform-independence. I
don't know how the pkg-config developers react on this, but I do know
that the dbus-developers don't care about that and don't accept help
from win32 developers. 

Also pkgconfig is not a buildsystem independent solution, it provides
information specifically for buildsystems that only set compiler flags,
it doesn't provide proper information for buildsystems like CMake which
benefits from knowing the full path of libraries, instead of just
compiler flags.

Andreas

-- 
Next Friday will not be your lucky day.  As a matter of fact, you don't
have a lucky day this year.