| 1 |
On Monday 30 April 2012 15:42:35 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it |
| 5 |
> >> runs 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 |
| 8 |
> >> enable a lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as |
| 9 |
> >> such, i'd like to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for |
| 10 |
> >> selection of simpler (but compatible) implementations. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but |
| 13 |
> >> there is also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be |
| 14 |
> >> compatible with the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the |
| 15 |
> >> tree, but will be once we agree on this topic. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> any comments ? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Maybe if pkgconf proves really good we could finally add pkg-config dep |
| 20 |
> > to @system... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Uh no... |
| 23 |
> I thought we are in process of minimizing @system and correcting |
| 24 |
> dependencies in ebuilds accordingly |
| 25 |
> --depclean should be able to clean out things like pkg-config which are |
| 26 |
> not needed at runtime |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
yarp. i think we've managed to whittle down @system to mostly runtime only |
| 29 |
packages at this point. don't want to reverse that trend. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
if we split epatch out of eutils.eclass and into epatch.eclass, we could |
| 32 |
probably get `patch` out of @system too. but maybe that's crazy talk. |
| 33 |
-mike |
Archives