From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Synacek Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Incorrect guile pkg-config --libs and --cflags Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:35:13 +0200 Message-ID: <516CF121.9070204@redhat.com> References: <516BB9A4.8080708@redhat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1366094123 9742 80.91.229.3 (16 Apr 2013 06:35:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Hartwig Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 16 08:35:27 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1URzUE-0002fF-18 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:35:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43214 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URzUD-0002w8-LD for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49560) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URzU7-0002qN-4O for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URzU5-0003Ae-Qj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1URzU5-0003AV-I9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3G6ZFCG029078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.34.24.183] (dhcp-24-183.brq.redhat.com [10.34.24.183]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3G6ZDtc007315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:35:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:16259 Archived-At: On 04/15/2013 03:45 PM, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 15 April 2013 19:58, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> or peculiar to the linker, libguile on your system, other? > > I see that this is related to the linker in fedora, which debian seems > also in the process of supporting. Indirect linkage like this is out > (apparently), and LIBS should properly include -pthread option. > > > > Indeed, the linker in fedora does not use indirect linking by default (or maybe at all). I can patch guile-{1.8,2.0}.pc to correctly add the libraries, though I'm not sure if that will work. Is it a good idea to rely on indirect linking as you (upstream) do now? Maybe it would be better to assume that indirect linking is not supported and have all the linker flags in the pkgconfig file. Or are there any other implications that I may not be aware of?