Re: tkConfig.sh vs. ./configure

Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> checking for tclConfig.sh... /usr/lib/tcl8.3/tclConfig.sh
> checking for tkConfig.sh... no
> configure: error: file `tkConfig.sh' is required for Tk

> If I define directly path by --with-tkconfig=/usr/lib/tk8.3 it pass.
> But why is it needful for tkConfig.sh if it's at very simular place
> as tclConfig.sh?

It looks like the default way to find the search path for these things
is to ask Tcl, via
echo 'puts $auto_path' | $TCLSH

Unfortunately tclsh is only going to answer about plain Tcl, not Tk.
We'd need to ask wish to get the path for Tk stuff. For example,
I get

$ tclsh
% puts $auto_path
/usr/local/lib/tcl8.0 /usr/local/lib

$ wish
% puts $auto_path
/usr/local/lib/tcl8.0 /usr/local/lib /usr/local/lib/tk8.0

Asking wish does not seem like a good idea, since it will fail to fire
up if you aren't in an X environment.

However, on my machine both tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh are in
/usr/local/lib, not in the subdirectories. Putting them in
version-specific subdirectories seems pretty self-defeating.
What packaging of tcl/tk did you use?

regards, tom lane