Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:48:16 +0200
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:

> Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
> > issues we are seeing today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for
> > static linking, there has been multiple bugs lately,
>
> I honestly don't think that it's Gentoo's place to fix those issues.
>
> Just error out. Make users complain to upstream when upstream has a
> problem. Don't hide the problem and amass a huge support workload.

"But it works fine on distro Y!" ... "Oh, you don't fix it; I go
to distro Y, I don't want to wait for upstream to support Gentoo."

But true, besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream; I
just don't think that it is something which we want to force our users
to do. It is more of an expectation that the maintainer should do this;
if not, users that are interested can help out with that as well.

> > and we are in middle of process of obsoleting every custom
> > foo-config
>
> Again I don't think that's Gentoo's decision to make. It could
> certainly be a user's decision, but complexity would explode.

Yeah, I'm not sure how well that would work for java-config for
instance; it helps a lot, I can't make myself a picture of a world
without java-config. It would introduce regressions with no benefit. 

> > so having pkg-config files is an absolute requirement.
>
> You haven't provided a rationale, only a circular argument:
>
> "We're taking action which requires .pc so having .pc is a
> requirement."

"We made a highway for driving with requires a car so having a car is a
requirement to drive on the highway." Now try driving an airplane on it.

In other words; it is easy to use what it has been made for, it gets
harder if you are trying to differ from the purpose of it.
 
> My key point is that it isn't Gentoo's responsibility or duty to fix
> problems introduced by upstreams, even if Gentoo developers are so
> skilled that they would be able to.
>
> I think your time is better spent on things that are not broken.

If we all did that, I wonder how much would still work; not as much as
we have achieved now, so I like that we've made an "added value".

> > > If upstream pkg A depends on $distro-specific foo of pkg B then
> > > that will obviously not work in an environment only following
> > > upstreams, and will require effort to untie gentoo pkg A from
> > > $distro specifics.
> >
> > pkg-config by design works without .pc files if needed,
> > so if this is the only problem with them, it's really no problem
>
> I think it is a problem, because Gentoo starts having an opinion.
>
> I don't like that. For me, Gentoo is all about letting me decide.

+1 but that doesn't withhold that there are defaults here and there.

> That means I must be exposed to broken upstreams, so that *I* can
> decide how to deal with them.

Yeah, you could switch to a distro where it all works, or keep running
away from them; but isn't a fix instead what you really want, I think
you can easily configure Gentoo to not apply any patches as all (disable
src_prepare) but you get to keep the pieces given all the breakage.
 
> Maybe introduce a USE flag for installing .pc:s in ${FILESDIR} ?

We have recently decided to not use an USE flag for small files; so,
I'm not sure if this proposal is much different from that decision.

You can use INSTALL_MASK for this purpose I think.

> > (Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config
> > files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.)
>
> I don't think I said to ban them. I said that I want Gentoo to stay
> close to upstream by default. I also said that maintainers shouldn't
> be expected to untie upstream bugknots.
>
> Please do not call me retarded again.

That might have been meant to be about the thread as a whole.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D