1 |
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
>>> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
7 |
>>> >> |
8 |
>>> >> keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense: |
9 |
>>> >> - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads) |
10 |
>>> >> - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on reduced |
11 |
>>> >> systems |
12 |
>>> > |
13 |
>>> > I think it's practically the same as compiler. |
14 |
>>> |
15 |
>>> that isn't a bad view point, but for the purposes of this discussion, |
16 |
>>> i don't think it's relevant :) |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Will it be a better view point if I opened a separate discussion about |
19 |
>> putting pkg-config in @system? It could get more attention probably. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> my answer would still be a very strong no |
22 |
|
23 |
Agreed. |
24 |
|
25 |
Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of |
26 |
packages in @system, for various reasons including both the parallel |
27 |
merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In practice, there's not |
28 |
a lot of positive movement on actually reducing @system, but at minimum, |
29 |
unless there's *NO* other choice and in this case there clearly is, we |
30 |
shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system. |
31 |
|
32 |
For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like pkg-config |
33 |
added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a non-starter, as it WILL |
34 |
get a lot of push-back. In theory it /might/ be forceable, but I just |
35 |
don't see how the cost, political, in time to push thru, and technical |
36 |
(given the technical reasons listed above), makes it worth pursuing in |
37 |
the slightest. It's just not worth going there. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
41 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
42 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |