Re: [PATCH 1/1] udev/pkgconfig: fix exec_prefix to be generated from @exec_prefix@

[Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@linux.intel.com>]

On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 00:48, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
>
> <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com> wrote:
> >>From: Marcel Holtmann [mailto:marcel@holtmann.org]
> >>
> >>> Otherwise paths where the libraries are to be found are out of sync.
> >>
> >>did you check the autogen.sh of udev. With programs living in the /
> >>directory (including their libraries) you have to do special things when
> >>installing them. Here is what udev uses:
> >>
> >>--prefix=/usr --exec-prefix= --sysconfdir=/etc --with-selinux
> >>
> >>And with that a "make install" words just fine. I have been using it
> >>since the last few month.
> >
> > Yeah, all that works ok -- my concern is more the generation of the .pc
> > file, as they are based off @exec_dir@ and in the pc.in template files,
> > exec_prefix is taken to be @prefix@, when that could not be the case.
> >
> > Am I missing anything here?
>
> Udev uses exec_prefix to put the binaries in /sbin and the lib in
> /lib{,64}, it can do that because it does not need to put any binary
> files in /usr. Stuff installed in the rootfs is kind of special, there
> is no general rule how to do that, and standard autotools do not help
> anything regarding that problem. Every package has its own way to do
> that.
>
> In general, pkgconfig files should not expose the that a library is
> installed in the rootfs, pkgconfig must always point to the
> development symlink, which is usually installed with the devel
> package, and lives in /usr, and is prefix here, not exec_prefix.
>
> We could make exec_prefix show the "real" value, but then we would
> need to fake the libdir value to point to /usr, which is the same type
> of inconsistency you discovered with today's solution.

Ah, ok, I see the point now -- I forgot that the bare .so can be 
placed anywhere.

Thank for the explanation

-- 
Inaky