| 1 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria |
| 6 |
> > allows it to classify the particular .la file as suitable for |
| 7 |
> > removal or not. Sadly, it's rather, ehm, unfriendly to ebuild |
| 8 |
> > developers who obviously don't even read the relevant part. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Do you have any ideas how we can improve that? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> before the func executes pkg-config, run `has virtual/pkgconfig |
| 13 |
> ${DEPEND}` and spit an eqawarn if it's not found |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ciaran will shot at me for doing that. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > One thing that comes into my mind is finally making pkgconfig |
| 18 |
> > a required, implicit part of toolchain (or @system). Since we have |
| 19 |
> > pkgconf now, this is more feasible than before. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> i don't think making it part of the toolchain makes sense. i'd rather |
| 22 |
> not add it to @system simply to keep a few packages from sometimes |
| 23 |
> failing. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd add it to @system because a lot of packages actually need to DEPEND |
| 26 |
on pkgconfig because they use libraries using .pc files. And the number |
| 27 |
is going to increase, hopefully. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Also, some people are probably going to try to get some pkgconf support |
| 30 |
directly into gcc, in form of '-something libfoo' to make it grab |
| 31 |
everything magically, I think. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives