[Gtk-sharp-list] [Patch, etc] minimal pkgconfig support
26 Mar 2003 23:30:50 -0600
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 23:53, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> There was one naming convention I used, because of a bit of
> naming conflict. For each of the assemblies, there is a
> pkgconfig file. Specifically...
> Art# -> art-sharp.pc
> Atk# -> atk-sharp.pc
Oy, that's a lot of pc's. I'm not sure we need to provide granularity
below Gtk, so we can combine glib, pango, atk, gdk, and gtk. Maybe we
should base the granularity on the configure checks?
> However, this leave us with a problem. What do we call the
> entire package as a whole? Following what we has been done
> with the Mono Hand Book (a.k.a. the MonkeyGuide), I've called
> the entire package gnome.net and made the gapi .pc file:
gapi.pc should be fine. We are installing a file in bin called gapi.pl,
so if there are namespacing issues they will already be hitting us
> Now, having said all of that, I want to make it so that doing a:
> pkg-config --libs gdk-sharp
> Returns the assemblies you need. But there are some problems
> with this that need to be worked out first.
> (Most of these are related to the fact that Mono, Portable.NET, and
> MS's csc all use different switches to do the same thing. And that
> Mono likes to put whitespace before the -L switch. But I'll deal
> with this in a future Patch.)
mcs and csc should be able to use identical switches. I think mcs
emulates all the csc switches now.
> So... is it OK to commit this. (Or should I rename anything? Etc?)
We need to rethink the granularity a bit. Anyone else have any opinions
on this? Are we breaking ground and setting precedents here that the
rest of the mono project should be consulted about? Since pkg-config is
primarily targetted at C projects, maybe we need to be considering
cooking a different solution that works better for the C# realm?
Mike Kestner <email@example.com>