From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 17 02:26:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65F516A4CF for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:26:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.jp.viruscheck.net (smtp3.jp.viruscheck.net [154.33.69.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6482043D31 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:26:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bland@freebsd.org) Received: from scan1.jp.viruscheck.net ([154.33.69.36] helo=mail5.jp.viruscheck.net) by smtp3.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1Bwtgd-0005Ip-00; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:26:55 +0900 Received: from [220.221.2.219] (helo=noc.orchid) by mail5.jp.viruscheck.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1Bwtgd-0002hx-00; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:26:55 +0900 Received: from [89.60.10.11] (horse.orchid [89.60.10.11]) by noc.orchid (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7H2Qrpv010527; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:26:54 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <41216CED.7020007@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:26:53 +0900 From: Alexander Nedotsukov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040714 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Messenger References: <200408161103.i7GB3RT0097632@freefall.freebsd.org> <1092692124.725.42.camel@gyros> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users Subject: Re: Current problem reports assigned to you X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:26:58 -0000 Jeremy Messenger wrote: >>> > o [2004/06/15] ports/67970 gnome ports textproc/libxml, >>> > textproc/libxslt: >>> >>> Well.......I personal don't care about this since pkgconfig is mofo >>> small. >>> :-P I bet this one is going to take forever unless someone step in and >>> create the patch(es). >> >> >> I don't see why we need to get anymore clever with pkgconfig. It is >> small, and is generally needed on any desktop system. > > > In case if anyone want to know my real thought of this PR. I disagree > with this PR, because the purpose of install foo.pc is to run > 'pkg-config --options foo'. Therefore, pkgconfig should be install. eik@ insist that he strictly follow the Porters Handbok (which is good thing by itself imho). And I bet he will respond you Jeremy with a sample like the only purpose to install .h files is to complille them. Why not to depend on gcc then? Or even better the only purpose to install .la files is to use them with libtool so why not to run-time depend on it? Btw this PR was colsed once. And I wish you good luck ;-) If it does matter my understanding of problem is: - there is no clear definition of what library run-time dependency is [1] - there is no clear direction on how to handle cases when port originally installs more that one entity (in our case library binary + pkgconfig metainfo) [2] - and we can not cleanup pkgconfig directory w/o adding it to mtree or depend on some dedicated like gnomehier port. The later is the only real reason imho we run-time depend on pkgconfig ATM. All others just an hidden excuse of this fact. [1] Here is the source of all those speculations who better unredtands Porters Handbook statements. [2] This may become more serious than it is now if some day we will be required to run pkg-config --install libfoo.pc All the best, Alexander.