Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 12:18:30 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r435576 - head/devel/pkgconf Message-ID: <86varkow3d.fsf@desk.des.no> In-Reply-To: <e2a17a43-d9f9-dbc7-a73c-5317440b4357@FreeBSD.org> (Mathieu Arnold's message of "Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:02:44 %2B0100") References: <201703070103.v2713JtB059883@repo.freebsd.org> <e2a17a43-d9f9-dbc7-a73c-5317440b4357@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> I am wondering how you came to commit this without getting approval
> from portmgr.
I had approval from the port maintainer.
> We always had a policy about putting the pkg-config files in
> libdata/pkgconfig and not in lib. And you just changed that 20 years
> old policy without even a discussion about the repercussions it would
> have.
1) I did not intentionally change the location where ports install pc
files. I just changed the search path to include the *default
location* for pc files from software that uses autoconf / automake.
2) It did not occur to me that some ports would use the search path to
decide where to install their pc files. I didn't know that was
possible, and I still don't understand how they do it, because there
is no documented command to retrieve that path.
Software that uses autoconf should use ${pkgconfdir}, which is still
libdata/pkgconfig. Software that uses autoconf and automake should
use "pkgconfig_DATA =3D foo.pc" in their Makefile.am.
3) My initial patch placed libdata first and lib second. The port
maintainer reviewed my patch and asked me to invert it. I assumed
that he had a good reason for it.
> So, before changing this policy, I am going to ask you, as portmgr, to
> please back the change out.
Why do I have the feeling that you're doing this purely out of spite?
Because as it currently stands (after your followup commit), the patch
has no effect on ports, but greatly facilitates life for developers.
I think you're forgetting that pkgconf does not exist solely for the use
of the ports tree, but also for the use of developers who write software
on FreeBSD. I fought that battle 10+ years over autoconf / automake and
prevailed. I'm disappointed to learn that I have to fight it again over
pkgconf, although I'm happy to learn that portmgr is taking an interest
in it, since last time I tried to get involved it was considered a part
of Gnome rather than a development tool in its own right. I was equally
disappointed to learn that nobody is interested in fixing similar issues
in the gcc ports which make it impossible (not just difficult, but
*impossible*) to use gcc to develop libraries on FreeBSD. Do you
realize that you are actively fighting to make or keep FreeBSD a
difficult platform for developers to work on? Do you really want people
who currently use FreeBSD as their primary development platform to
switch to Linux and port their software to FreeBSD as an afterthought?
Because that is where you are headed.
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86varkow3d.fsf>