| 1 |
On 30 April 2012 00:08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs |
| 5 |
>> > pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee. |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a |
| 8 |
>> > lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as such, i'd like |
| 9 |
>> > to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for selection of simpler |
| 10 |
>> > (but compatible) implementations. |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is |
| 13 |
>> > also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be compatible with |
| 14 |
>> > the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the tree, but will be once |
| 15 |
>> > we agree on this topic. |
| 16 |
>> > |
| 17 |
>> > any comments ? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have |
| 20 |
>> authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make |
| 21 |
>> changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make |
| 22 |
>> pkgconf work for us. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? |
| 27 |
> -mike |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The patches look pretty good. As far as the solution for pkg.m4...I |
| 30 |
just gave it a second look and noticed it's GPLv2+ which means the |
| 31 |
license is compatible with pkgconf's (I thought it was GPLv3, which |
| 32 |
would've meant it wasn't compatible)...We'll work on getting those |
| 33 |
patches and the pkg.m4 in the tree and getting a 0.2 release rolled |
| 34 |
out in the next day or 2. |
Archives