LFS 5.0 - pkgconfig-0.15.0 - PKG_CONFIG_PATH
dagmar.wants at nospam.com
Thu Feb 12 13:20:26 PST 2004
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 18:40, Albert wrote:
> Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
> > ...which means if you built it with --prefix=/usr, it will always look
> > in /usr/lib/pkgconfig no matter what PKG_CONFIG_PATH is set to.
> That might explain it then. Are you saying pkg-config compiles in the
> <prefix >/lib/pkgconfig path?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
> There is more than one way to install
> into <prefix>. I use a package management tool like stow. I install
> into another prefix and then link the files to <prefix>. That seems
> like a bug to me. pkg-config would be more robust and flexible if it
> didn't do that.
You're doing it wrong then. Learn the proper way to change the
installation root during the make install and you won't have a problem
with your stow path being hardcoded into pkgconfig.
> > If
> > you followed the book's instructions, then pkgconfig was installed in
> > /usr, and if you want it to search /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig, you
> > *must* add it
> > to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH variable. This is not a bug in pkgconfig.
> > This is also not a bug in the book.
> The book *still* says:
> "The default settings for PKG_CONFIG_PATH are /lib/pkgconfig, /usr/lib
> pkgconfig and /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig. These settings are hard-coded
> and do not have to be exported with the additional paths."
> That seems clear to me. And it makes no mention of those settings being
> dependent on <prefix>.
Then the book is likely wrong, and someone should have been
fact-checking. Check the source and see.
> > Since no packages in the book is
> > installed into /usr/local, people who follow the instructions won't
> > have
> > any problem.
> I followed the instructions and still had the problem.
So which packages in the book install things into /usr/local?
The email address above is phony because my penis is already large enough, kthx.
AIM: evilDagmar Jabber: evilDagmar at jabber.org
More information about the blfs-support