| 1 |
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:52:01 +0100 |
| 2 |
justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The only remaining problem is on the implementation side. As you can |
| 5 |
> imagine, this effort is nothing in which the upstreams are really |
| 6 |
> interested in. Therefore most of our .pc files are created inside the |
| 7 |
> ebuild. Eventually they will find their way back upstream, but currently |
| 8 |
> this is something gentoo specific, it's about choices. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The eclass should just be a reduction of redundant code. And of course |
| 11 |
> its not meant to be a replacement to upstream work on packages with sane |
| 12 |
> buildsystems. Its just a last resort for corner cases like our |
| 13 |
> lapack/blas stuff, which do not have any reasonable option. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I hope this clears my intention and makes it reasonable to have this eclass, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Nope, it doesn't. If the pkg-config file is created within an ebuild |
| 18 |
(or eclass), it is *completely unsuitable* to go anywhere. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You should write a template, preferably 'mostly' compatible with |
| 21 |
the build system and put it into FILESDIR. Even if it's going to be |
| 22 |
redundant. This way, we have a simple, ready, clean, constant file |
| 23 |
which can be sent upstream or copied by any other distro. It also makes |
| 24 |
clear that the file is Gentoo-specific. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives