Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: new eclass - pkgconfig.eclass

[justin]

On 29/11/12 09:52, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:52:01 +0100
> justin <jlec@g.o> wrote:
>
>> The only remaining problem is on the implementation side. As you can
>> imagine, this effort is nothing in which the upstreams are really
>> interested in. Therefore most of our .pc files are created inside the
>> ebuild. Eventually they will find their way back upstream, but currently
>> this is something gentoo specific, it's about choices.
>>
>> The eclass should just be a reduction of redundant code. And of course
>> its not meant to be a replacement to upstream work on packages with sane
>> buildsystems. Its just a last resort for corner cases like our
>> lapack/blas stuff, which do not have any reasonable option.
>>
>> I hope this clears my intention and makes it reasonable to have this eclass,
>
> Nope, it doesn't. If the pkg-config file is created within an ebuild
> (or eclass), it is *completely unsuitable* to go anywhere.
>
> You should write a template, preferably 'mostly' compatible with
> the build system and put it into FILESDIR. Even if it's going to be
> redundant. This way, we have a simple, ready, clean, constant file
> which can be sent upstream or copied by any other distro. It also makes
> clear that the file is Gentoo-specific.
>
>

Just to be clear on some points.

1.
We are _not_ talking about packages like e.g. gnome libs which have
upstreams who know how to work with buildsystem and use sane standard
ones. Those love to accept patches making things smoother.
Most of the sci upstreams are using custom shell scripts or badly
written makefiles. They normal don't get the point in accepting things
from us.

2.
Even if we would directly start working with upstream on a solution, we
would not have something in broad distribution downstream before we all
will retire from gentoo.
(If you like, you can go to intel and tell them to have a buildsystem
which creates the necessary files. This will not happen in near future.)

3.
Most distribution, as they happen to be binary, only build against one
implementation usually the reference. And a significantly large number
even rename their libraries. So no sense to convince them to use
standard pc files. So no need for us to force a solution with upstream
now, before proceeding with gentoo.

We need to think about gentoo now. Therefore a manual creation of those
files is what we are doing now. With or without an eclass.


Now back to your good argument. You are right, we should work with some
sort of template. I think for the reference implementations this can be
realized quite easily, as they moved to cmake quite recently. For most
of the others it will be quite some work. We will take a look into their
buildsystem and see what we can achieve.


Thanks,
Justin