On Monday, 20 November 2017 11:07 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > Why do you want to replace krb5-config with pkg-config? > [...] > Are there advantages/simplicities in coding that led you to that > approach? I'd like to understand so I can evaluate.
As Ben pointed out, pkgconfig has been replacing the -config interfaces for some time, so I generally consider the -config scripts to be deprecated or legacy at best. Also, the output of these scripts can be unreliable or even entirely incorrect (e.g. when cross-compiling). I wrote the script using pkg-config because I wanted to see if pkg-config-crosswrapper could solve the cross-compiling issue. That said, I think the script I posted above is simpler than calling arch-specific config files from a krb5-config wrapper. But that's not saying my solution is any better. > i'm a bit concerned that getting the behavior of all the different > --libs options for the different types of Kerberos apps will be a bit > fiddly. There are several pkg-config files in /usr/lib/<triplet>/pkgconfig/mit-krb5 that may be useful. However, to use them, you must either set PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR to the pkgconfig/mit-krb5 directory, or move the files into the main pkgconfig directory. Unfortunately, this latter option would conflict with the pkgconfig files from heimdal-dev. Of course, this only matters if users install both package variants. Is this likely? The MIT pkgconfig files could potentially be prefixed with mit-, like mit-krb5.pc and mit-krb5-gssapi.pc already are. Since it seems that most, if not all, developers still use krb5-config(.mit), this may be a better option. Hugh
