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

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 21:25:55 +0200
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream;
>
> I think there is agreement that this is the ideal, and that the
> discussion is about what to do when that seems out of reach.

Yes, I think that's the case too; I think I wrote it for completeness.

> > 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".
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'm wholeheartedly in favor of contributing
> fixes upstream, but not of building a support workload when upstream
> is uncooperative.

The "bug"load is there regardless of whether you want to support or it
or not when upstream is uncooperative; so, I think that the status quo
is currently that people whom can and want to fix it can do so.

But I don't think that forcing them to do or not do it is something
that the whole distribution can be convinced to do, at least from what
I read; I'm also not sure if you meant to suggest such force or not, ...

> > You can use INSTALL_MASK for this purpose I think.
>
> Mh but that'll also kill .pc files from upstream. The option I'd like
> is to mask only the ones added by Gentoo. I would be fine with them
> having gentoo- names. That makes it very clear that this interface is
> a Gentoo-specific thing. However, that throws off the autoconf
> pkg-config macros. :\

Yeah, it's tricky; this makes me think, can't we perhaps install them
in a separate directory that pkg-config could check?

That way, we don't need to change the name anymore; and they would
still be separate, allowing you to separately mask them.

-- 
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