On Mon, 12 May 2014 23:43:34 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Yeah, it's tricky; this makes me think, can't we perhaps install them
> in a separate directory that pkg-config could check?
A quick collective brainstorm on IRC gives the idea that this is not
worth the effort, as this imposes patching mul
On Mon, 12 May 2014 21:25:55 +0200
Peter Stuge 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 cas
Samuli Suominen:
>
> On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for "Linux".
>>> I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
>>>
>>> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-conf
On 05/12/2014 06:47 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
>>> software for "Linux".
>>
>> I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
>>
>> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
>> at all (
On 12/05/14 22:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
(Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config
files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.)
>>> I don't think I said to ban them. I said that I want Gentoo to stay
>>> close to upstream by default. I also said that maintainers sh
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.
> > My key point is that it isn't Gentoo's responsibility or duty to fix
> > problems introd
On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:48:16 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
> > issues we are seeing today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for
> > static linking, there has been multiple bugs lately,
>
> I honestly don't th
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> >> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
>> >> at all (in these cases).
>>
>> > I think this is a sane default.
>>
>> Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
>>
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
> >> at all (in these cases).
>
> > I think this is a sane default.
>
> Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
> issues we are seeing today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' f
Dnia 2014-05-12, o godz. 21:24:26
Samuli Suominen napisał(a):
> On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
> >>> software for "Linux".
> >> I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
> >>
> >> If we s
On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
>>> software for "Linux".
>> I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
>>
>> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
>> at all (in thes
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
> > software for "Linux".
>
> I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
>
> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
> at all (in these cases).
I think this is a sane default
Sure, this is a more complex problem.
My point is, for pkg-config files it is relatively easy to fix stuff
that depends on non-standard files (I can write a devmanual section
about that, but err... this is really trivial). The amount of these
downstream pkg-config files is not as big as you might
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
> software for "Linux". Instead (like valve), people start to develop for
> certain distros only (like Ubuntu), because it's just too much work to
> bother with all this hackery-her
Rich Freeman:
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:00 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> Our philosophy states that our tools "should be a joy to use". If we add
>> random hackery on stuff that affects portability across distros, then
>> this doesn't hold true anymore.
>>
>
> Which one of our tools is at risk of n
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:00 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> Our philosophy states that our tools "should be a joy to use". If we add
> random hackery on stuff that affects portability across distros, then
> this doesn't hold true anymore.
>
Which one of our tools is at risk of not being a joy to use? A
Markos Chandras:
>> Gentoo, almost all pkgconfig files come from upstream with minimal
>> modification. So a .pc file that is specific to Gentoo is a rare
>> exception, and it could cause confusion for users who installed Gentoo
>> on their development machine and who wish to develop new portable
>
Markos Chandras:
> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>>
>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
>> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and prev
Rich Freeman:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
>> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
>>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
>>> properly?
>>
>> Yes,
On 10/05/14 12:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
>
On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think fixing ups
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
> >> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
> >>
> >> It indeed is, this is
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>>
>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
>> some of which can be
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>
> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
>
>
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to coop
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:50 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
> >> files instead of communicating that to upstrea
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
>> properly?
>
> Yes, when your "instead of .
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
>> properly?
>
> Yes, when your "instead of ..." is
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
> properly?
Yes, when your "instead of ..." is not an option.
> What other distributions do? Or are we
29 matches
Mail list logo
