On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:58:14AM +0100, Bernhard Fr?hlich wrote: > On Sa., 15. Dez. 2012 02:22:34 CET, Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:54:19AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Some of our binary are overlinked, the way we handle the linking > > > doesn't help for that. > > What do you mean there ? Do you mean that some libraries specified for > > the linking stage of the final binary are not needed for the execution ? > > > > > > > > On proposition could be to use pkgconf > > > https://github.com/pkgconf/pkgconf which is BSD license pkg-config > > > implementation 100% compatible with pkg-config. > > > > > > What I propose is to create a new PCADD variable for the Makefiles. > > > > > > PCADD will invoke pkgconf to gather the libraries and the cflags for a > > > given project. > > > > > > The second thing would be to create .pc files for all of our libraries. > > > > > > for example: > > > usr.bin/fstat dynamic build is overlinked > > And how this is better than just removing the unneeded library from > > the Makefile ? > > > > For the port consumption, I believe that the better solution is to > > provide a pack of the .pc files describing base libraries, most likely > > as port. > > We should definitely generate some pc files for our base libraries. > We already have quite a few ports that need to hack around because of > missing pc files for ssl for example.
This is fine. But making the base build depend on the pkgconf does not give us anything except complications and overhead, in my opinion.
pgptYtmqz9fXe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
