On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > In other words, pkg-config is only used when no other criteria
> >> > allows it to classify the particular .la file as suitable for
> >> > removal or not. Sadly, it's rather, ehm, unfriendly to ebuild
> >> > developers who obviously don't even read the relevant part.
> >> >
> >> > Do you have any ideas how we can improve that?
> >>
> >> before the func executes pkg-config, run `has virtual/pkgconfig
> >> ${DEPEND}` and spit an eqawarn if it's not found
> >
> > Ciaran will shot at me for doing that.
>
> it isn't violating anything and can find real bugs. i don't see a
> problem here.
It is violating the Holy PMS.
> >> > One thing that comes into my mind is finally making pkgconfig
> >> > a required, implicit part of toolchain (or @system). Since we
> >> > have pkgconf now, this is more feasible than before.
> >>
> >> i don't think making it part of the toolchain makes sense. i'd
> >> rather not add it to @system simply to keep a few packages from
> >> sometimes failing.
> >
> > I'd add it to @system because a lot of packages actually need to
> > DEPEND on pkgconfig because they use libraries using .pc files. And
> > the number is going to increase, hopefully.
>
> sure, but keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense:
> - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads)
> - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on reduced
> systems
I think it's practically the same as compiler.
Also, a quick look at !ddep shows over 7000 reverse dependencies. That
looks like a bigger penalty to me.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
