| 1 |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:05:23 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 31/08/12 10:56 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> I believe that the more important direction here is to make |
| 11 |
> >> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over |
| 12 |
> >> and over again to every single package is at least frustrating. |
| 13 |
> >> Similarly frustrating would be if those 'reduced systems' had to |
| 14 |
> >> rebuild gcc every time they wanted to compile something... oh |
| 15 |
> >> wait, they would have to bootstrap it every time. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > you would achieve it better by adding pkgconfig to DEPEND in |
| 19 |
> > eutils.eclass than putting it in @system since in the latter case |
| 20 |
> > it would also be a RDEPEND of everything basically |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> And realistically that's where the DEPEND should be anyways, IMO -- |
| 24 |
> appended by the eclass where the function is that uses it. If this |
| 25 |
> means prune_libtool_files() gets separated out of eutils and put in |
| 26 |
> its own eclass (so that all the eutils inheritors don't suddenly need |
| 27 |
> virtual/pkgconfig unnecessarily), then so be it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I wasn't referring to the function at the moment but at the overall |
| 30 |
fact that practically any C/C++ package depending on any non-standard |
| 31 |
library practically should depend on pkg-config. A library not |
| 32 |
providing pkg-config file is simply broken. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives