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

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:42:10 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
>
> > Michał Górny posted on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:09 +0200 as excerpted:
> >
> > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC)
> > > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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
> >
> > > But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little?
> >
> > Not really, when it's a step in the opposite direction from an
> > intended goal.  The first step toward any goal is to stop going
> > backward, and that's exactly what this would be.  We need a smaller
> > @system, not a larger one, and while the add would be easy, undoing
> > it years later when it's yet another bit of the tangled web woven,
> > would be *MUCH* more difficult.  Just don't do it; don't go
> > backward; don't add to the problem instead of reducing it.
>
> So please introduce virtual/compiler, virtual/linker,
> virtual/posix-system, virtual/sratatata and add them to DEPEND of
> every single ebuild.
>
> I believe that the more important direction here is to make
> development *easier*, not harder. Adding the same DEPENDs over and
> over again to every single package is at least frustrating. Similarly
> frustrating would be if those 'reduced systems' had to rebuild gcc
> every time they wanted to compile something... oh wait, they would
> have to bootstrap it every time.
>

you would achieve it better by adding pkgconfig to DEPEND in
eutils.eclass than putting it in @system since in the latter case it
would also be a RDEPEND of everything basically

this doesnt really compare to gcc since its a RDEPEND for everything c++
and maybe more (i didnt check when libgcc_s is linked in or not)

A.