On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:34:25PM +0300, Tomi Ollila wrote: > On Wed, May 21 2014, Fraser Tweedale <frase@frase.id.au> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 05:27:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> Tomi Ollila wrote: > >> > On Sun, May 11 2014, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Xīcò wrote: > >> > >> Since zlib is part of the base system, FreeBSD chose not to register it > >> > >> in pkg-config through zlib.pc. As a fallback test, configure will build > >> > >> and run a zlib version check and make sure the header and library > >> > >> versions are compatible. > >> > > > >> > > We could try to generate our on zlib.pc, this way the configure script > >> > > would be cleaner. > >> > > >> > But for that we'd need to figure out the version, and is there simpler > >> > robust way to do that some other way ? > >> > >> I don't meant to change the code that is checking for the version in the > >> patch, you use the same code, but instead of have_zlib.c gen_zlib_pc.c, > >> or something. > >> > > > > [please cc me in replies; I am not subscribed to the list] > > > > I think that the additional complexity outweighs the benefit of a > > somewhat cleaner build script. > > > > If the $vz1, $vz2, et al. are what's bothering you, perhaps we could > > push the complexity of version comparison into have_zlib.c and > > supply the (string) version number as an argument to the program. > > The have_zlib program could do the comparison and exit accordingly, > > and plain old "1.2.5.2" can take its place in the configure script > > once more. > > > > However, I don't see any problems with the patch as it is; I have > > tested it on FreeBSD 10.0 and it works. > > Did you notice > > http://mid.gmane.org/1399864172-28227-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com > > :D > Whups, I missed that one :) Cheers. > > > > Regards, > > > > Fraser > > > >> -- > >> Felipe Contreras > > Tomi