Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 15:03:28 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Tobias C. Berner" <tcberner@FreeBSD.org>, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r423237 - head/Mk/Uses Message-ID: <20161004150328.325cdd1d@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <20161004104714.GA6232@FreeBSD.org> References: <201610040618.u946IWiR015188@repo.freebsd.org> <20161004120415.010a5d9e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <20161004104714.GA6232@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:47:14 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:04:15PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> ... >> Can't we just use lib/pkgconfig already? Having to patch every port >> to move it to libdata is pointless extra work. Nobody cares that these >> files are in libdata. > > Well I kind of do. These files are not libraries (code) but data, so it > naturally belongs to `libdata', alongside with `ldconfig[32]'. I know, but the feeling of 'yay the files are in the right place' does not weigh up against all the work it requires because we're talking about thousands of ports that need patching. There are plenty of other data files in lib (X11, cmake,...), even header files, that we didn't bother to move because it's just more work and zero benefit. > Is there any rational explanation why most GNU/Linux distros put them in > `lib' (apart from lack of thought in the first place)? Linux doesn't have libdata.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161004150328.325cdd1d>