From: Michael G. <mg...@ti...> - 2007-08-25 18:53:13
|
> But maybe its not even suse's fault. I have the feeling that by switching= =20 > users the environment is not set up properly, what does "su -" followed b= y=20 > a "echo PKG_CONFIG_PATH" give you? Regardless of whether I use 'su -' or sudo: PKG_CONFIG_PATH is set up correctly as is evident by the following: mgd@seneca:~/ariad/23e1> su - Passwort: seneca:~ # echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/local/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib64/pkgconfig:/u= sr/share/pkgconfig:/opt/kde3/lib64/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/lib64/pkgconfig:/op= t/gnome/lib64/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/share/pkgconfig seneca:~ # seneca:~ # logout mgd@seneca:~/ariad/23e1> sudo echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH root's password: /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/local/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib64/pkgconfig:/u= sr/share/pkgconfig:/opt/kde3/lib64/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/lib64/pkgconfig:/op= t/gnome/lib64/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/share/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/opt/= kde3/lib/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig > ? Do you like packages compiling for half an hour and then telling you "O= h, by=20 > the way, I also need the <bla> package" and you install it and after anot= her=20 > half an hour it brings the same message but with a different package? > That is why package dependencies are checked at the beginning. I already wrote, I fully understand why scons does what it does. [carefully reading what I wrote would have told you that] However - and here I repeat myself - I don't buy that scons *HAS*TO* do a full configure before trying an install. The autotools have seperated these tasks into configure and make and I'm confident in principle scons would be able to realize there is no need for a (re-)configure before trying an install. > And the checks are performed everytime scons is invoked to see if somethi= ng=20 > changed (and because you could have skipped the configure and build step = by=20 > just doing "scons install" which would still result in a complete=20 > installation, try that with auto* "make: No makefile found"). I already wrote twice I'm fully aware why scons does what it does. It's just I happen to dislike this approach as it involves lots of repeated checks th= at most of the time are simply superflous because nothing has changed. > I know that the handling in our current scons is not optimal (and I will = spend=20 > quite some of my valueable free time to fix it), but just complaining "it= =20 > worked with auto* and it doesn't now, the new system is bad" is _not_=20 > helping. Please cite correctly. I wrote "w/r to...autotools it is a regression...". I didn't say anything along the lines of good or bad. I don't think it is disputeable that something that used to work and now does not work anymore is anything but a regression. > If it worked on windows and doesn't on Linux, please get back to the =20 > MS-world... I know I never ever mentioned anything about windows or the MS-world. Your outright rude remark is completely out of place and definitely not asked for. Best, Michael =2D-=20 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ !tagline Michael Gerdau email: mg...@ti... GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver |