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

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:

> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger 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:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 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.
> >
> > my answer would still be a very strong no
>
> Agreed.
>
> Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number
> of packages in @system, for various reasons including both the
> parallel merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems.  In
> practice, there's not a lot of positive movement on actually reducing
> @system, but at minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice and in this
> case there clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system.
>
> For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like
> pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a
> non-starter, as it WILL get a lot of push-back.  In theory it /might/
> be forceable, but I just don't see how the cost, political, in time
> to push thru, and technical (given the technical reasons listed
> above), makes it worth pursuing in the slightest.  It's just not
> worth going there.

But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny