Re: [gentoo-dev] prune_libtool_files() and pkg-config dependency

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> >> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria
> >> >> > allows it to classify the particular .la file as suitable for
> >> >> > removal or not. Sadly, it's rather, ehm, unfriendly to ebuild
> >> >> > developers who obviously don't even read the relevant part.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you have any ideas how we can improve that?
> >> >>
> >> >> before the func executes pkg-config, run `has virtual/pkgconfig
> >> >> ${DEPEND}` and spit an eqawarn if it's not found
> >> >
> >> > Ciaran will shot at me for doing that.
> >>
> >> it isn't violating anything and can find real bugs.  i don't see a
> >> problem here.
> >
> > It is violating the Holy PMS.
>
> does it actually ?  are DEPEND variables not allowed to be expanded in
> pkg_* src_* funcs ?
>
> we could probably add a similar check to autotools.eclass: grep for
> PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG and check ${DEPEND}
>
> >> >> > One thing that comes into my mind is finally making pkgconfig
> >> >> > a required, implicit part of toolchain (or @system). Since we
> >> >> > have pkgconf now, this is more feasible than before.
> >> >>
> >> >> i don't think making it part of the toolchain makes sense.  i'd
> >> >> rather not add it to @system simply to keep a few packages from
> >> >> sometimes failing.
> >> >
> >> > I'd add it to @system because a lot of packages actually need to
> >> > DEPEND on pkgconfig because they use libraries using .pc files.
> >> > And the number is going to increase, hopefully.
> >>
> >> sure, but keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense:
> >>  - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads)
> >>  - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on reduced
> >> systems
> >
> > I think it's practically the same as compiler.
>
> that isn't a bad view point, but for the purposes of this discussion,
> i don't think it's relevant :)

Will it be a better view point if I opened a separate discussion about
putting pkg-config in @system? It could get more attention probably.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny