libpng-1.2.10 pc file

Without patching, the pc file installs unaltered (VARIABLE in place of 
proper values).  I changed the values to what I thought they
should be 
on the fly.  This is different than what I have from the
1.2.8 version. 
  I assumed the patch was not needed as the pngtest compile
line 
contained -lz and -lm in the build log (I think it was
pngtest, I 
ditched the log once all was well :-/).  Anyway, this works
since we 
have to modify it, and is consistant with libpng-config's
result, but 
would the patch be the better option?

----------------------------------------------------------
[djname1 ~]# cat
/media/lfs/usr/lib/pkgconfig/libpng12.pc
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=$
libdir=$/lib
includedir=$/include

Name: libpng
Description: Loads and saves PNG files
Version: 1.2.10
Libs: -L$ -lpng12 -lz -lm
Cflags: -I$/libpng12
----------------------------------------------------------
[djname1 ~]# cat /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libpng12.pc

prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=$
libdir=$/lib
includedir=$/include

Name: libpng12
Description: Loads and saves PNG files
Version: 1.2.8
Libs: -L$ -lpng12
Cflags: -I$/libpng12
----------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't get some xorg apps package to build against it
unless I added 
-lz.  -lm was just a guess and a precaution as that was what
was fixed 
in the previous version's link_to_proper_libs patch.  Also
note that the 
libpng-config program *is* modified correctly durring the
installation.

-- DJ Lucas
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

DJ Lucas wrote:

> Anyway, this works since we 
> have to modify it, and is consistant with
libpng-config's result, but 
> would the patch be the better option?

Forgot to add:
[djname1 ~]# ldd /media/lfs/usr/lib/libpng12.so.0.1.2.10
         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
         libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7df2000)
         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
[djname1 ~]# ldd /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0.1.2.8
         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
         libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7f59000)
         libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0xb7f34000)
         libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7e13000)
         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)

Just seems strange that the developers haven't fixed this,
5 revisions 
later.   I think the libpng-config file (and pc file) is the
correct 
place to handle this, at least as the developer had intended
it to be. 
I'm not sure why they do it that way.  Probably should ask
the developers.

-- DJ Lucas
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

DJ Lucas wrote these words on 05/22/06 22:14 CST:

> [snip everything, as my belief is that it is all wrong]

DJ, we need to get to the bottom of this. I have a fresh new
LFS
build, and libpng-1.2.10.

It was:

./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make install

and I've not heard a peep from any package about libpng.
And I'm
close to the 300 packages into the build so far.

Before we do anything else, let's determine what you did
different
than me, that is causing you to see such strange behavior.

BTW, here is what was installed on my machine:

rmlrmlinux: ~/build > cat
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/libpng.pc
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=$
libdir=$/lib
includedir=$/include/libpng12

Name: libpng
Description: Loads and saves PNG files
Version: 1.2.10
Libs: -L$ -lpng12
Cflags: -I$

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc
(GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
i686]
06:02:00 up 10 days, 22:02, 1 user, load average: 0.00,
0.05, 0.01
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Randy McMurchy wrote:

> ./configure --prefix=/usr
> make
> make install
> 
> and I've not heard a peep from any package about
libpng. And I'm
> close to the 300 packages into the build so far.
> 
> Before we do anything else, let's determine what you
did different
> than me, that is causing you to see such strange
behavior.

Yes, I see.  And I have absolutely no explanation.  A
removal and 
rebuild confirms that it does install correctly.  Sorry for
the noise.

I realize that my first messages were hard to decipher, but
on the first 
install, after removing libpng-1.2.8, the libpng.pc file
installed into 
/usr/lib/pkgconfig was an unaltered copy of the original as
shipped in 
the tarball.  All values were of the form VALUE.

The only explanation I can think of is that I must have
borked the 
Makefile while looking for the linker flags, though I don't
recall ever 
going into insert mode.

-- DJ Lucas
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page