Re: Request for review: glpk

[Quentin Spencer <qspencer ieee org>]

Ed Hill wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 09:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  
>
> > On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 12:55 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > Unfortunately, it doesn't work, as illustrated by the following excerpt 
> > > from config.log:
> > > configure:8588: checking glpk.h usability
> > > configure:8600: gcc -c -I/usr/include/glpk  conftest.c >&5
> > > <snip>
> > > configure:8633: checking glpk.h presence
> > > configure:8643: gcc -E  conftest.c
> > >
> > > For some reason, the second check throws out the flags that I passed in. 
> > > I have to admit I don't know much about autotools.
> > > Is this normal in a configure script?
> > >      
> > No, conversely, configure scripts are supposed to accept several flags
> > such as CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS etc. and are not supposed to
> > override them, but ... I have seen better configure scripts than
> > octave's ;)
> >    
>
> So, lets help upstream improve it.  ;-)  Will they accept patches?  

If you're talking about octave, definitely yes. GLPK is another 
story--one of the least responsive package developers I've come accross 
(part of the reason we still have no shared libs).

-Quentin