Re: AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS and pkg-config

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Richard,

* Richard Ash wrote on Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:59:17PM CEST:
> > > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 09:41 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: 
> > > > * Richard Ash wrote on Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:31:39PM CEST:
> > > > > I seem to have hit a fundamental problem with the way 
> > > > > AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS
[...]
> > > > Why don't you organize your package in such a way that the top level
> > > > configure is just a stub one calling those for lib1, lib2, ..., libN,
> > > > and only then the one for your main package?
[...]
> Under your scheme I have to decide what libraries to configure before
> anything else has happened, and indeed before I know the output of any
> of those configurations. I still can't express chained dependencies like
> the fact I need libvorbis, which depends on libogg, in order to build my
> app. If I try to support this, I need three layers of chained configure
> scripts...

Hmm, ok.  Your request for a new macro to run a sub-configure script
right away makes more sense to me now.

> It's possible to work around, but it seems much more logical to do
> if (libX available on system)
>   USE_LIBX=system
> else
>   configure(libX)
>   if (libX available locally)
>     USE_LIBX=local
>   else
>     USE_LIBX=no
>   fi
> fi
> 
> Not least because this is only one line (the configure(libX)) different
> from what I write for a library that doesn't use pkg-config. I agree
> it's possible to design a configure script around the limitations of
> AC_CONFIG_SUBIRS and pkg-config. What I'm struggling to comprehend is
> why I should have to do this - I thought pkg-config and autoconf were
> both supposed to make configuring my program easier, at the moment they
> are making life significantly awkward.

Well, I don't think anyone has complained about it this plainly.

Thanks,
Ralf