| 1 |
On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg- |
| 3 |
> config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a |
| 6 |
> lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as such, i'd like to |
| 7 |
> introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for selection of simpler (but |
| 8 |
> compatible) implementations. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is also |
| 11 |
> "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be compatible with the canonical |
| 12 |
> pkg-config. they aren't yet in the tree, but will be once we agree on this |
| 13 |
> topic. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> any comments ? |
| 16 |
> -mike |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
=dev-util/pkgconfig-9999 with USE="internal-glib" in Portage. I'm |
| 19 |
hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for |
| 22 |
doing so, so I can decide whether I should be rolling also a snapshot |
| 23 |
ebuild for ~arch or not. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And entirely different thing... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And I'll look into making pkgconfig-openbsd suitable for the virtual |
| 30 |
today too, but I'm not expecting to KEYWORD it ever since even the |
| 31 |
OpenBSD guys declare it only partly compatible in their docs/code. |
Archives