Andy Polyakov

> do I understand you would be favorable to have a dedicated build script? Not a build, but a "clone-latest-tag-into-a-temp-dir, call-the-temp-dir/build.sh, copy-headers-and-.a-file, generate-the-.pc-file." I'm torn about the 1st step, it...

> Users have to recognize that C bindings is something to build upon **further** Just in case, it would be tedious to build further in C, C++[>=11] would be a...

How about ``` #!/bin/sh set -e _IFS="$IFS"; IFS=':' for dir in $PKG_CONFIG_PATH `pkg-config --variable pc_path pkg-config`; do if [ -d "${dir}" -a -w "${dir}" -a -d "${dir}/../../include" ]; then tgt="$dir"...

Please see #196.

> packaged by all the various Linux distributions Well, it makes little sense, because blst is not really a general-purpose library. Besides, you're obviously talking about the C part, while...

> If the existing `blst` build system provided a `pkg-config` file I would probably not be asking this question. But it's not something we can just add to the repository,...

> We use `blst` from Haskell. It's getting weirder and weirder :-) But on a serious note. Out of curiosity (and for future reference), do you have to mirror structure...

> What are the discovery mechanisms there? Even if there are none on the Haskell side, you (not you personally, but the organization) ought to have some procedure to accommodate...

> > But it's not something we can just add to the repository, right? > > No, it requires dynamic system dependent content. "No" as in "not right" or "no"...

> I would have `blst` provide a `pkg-config` file. Now I'm utterly confused. How do you reconcile "no, you can't" and "I would do it"? As for MacGyver-ing one. Is...