Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The only really interesting things that tclConfig.sh (and tkConfig.sh)
> tells us are the names of various libraries. But those names can be used
> portably with any compiler, so I don't see why we need to subscribe to the
> whole deal. AFAICT, the rest (TCL_CC, TCL_SHLIB_SUFFIX, etc.) is merely a
> help for people who don't know how to build shared libraries, but we do,
> so we should use our own way.
I think this may be a hangover from a time when Tcl was more likely to
know how to build shlibs than our own makefiles were.
However, it doesn't appear to me that we'll get rid of all that much
cruft if we change. We'll still need to find and read tclConfig.sh
in order to find out such interesting things as which shlibs libtcl.so
is dependent on. Why are you concerned about fixing something that's
not especially broken?
regards, tom lane