Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:58:14 +0100 From: Bernhard =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=F6hlich?= <decke@bluelife.at> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fix overlinking in base aka import pkgconf Message-ID: <1355558294.7933.2.camel@Nokia-N900-42-11> In-Reply-To: <20121215012233.GP71906@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20121214235418.GF18884@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121215012233.GP71906@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sa., 15. Dez. 2012 02:22:34 CET, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:54:19AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some of our binary are overlinked, the way we handle the linking > > doesn't help for that. > What do you mean there ? Do you mean that some libraries specified for > the linking stage of the final binary are not needed for the execution ? > > > > > On proposition could be to use pkgconf > > https://github.com/pkgconf/pkgconf which is BSD license pkg-config > > implementation 100% compatible with pkg-config. > > > > What I propose is to create a new PCADD variable for the Makefiles. > > > > PCADD will invoke pkgconf to gather the libraries and the cflags for a > > given project. > > > > The second thing would be to create .pc files for all of our libraries. > > > > for example: > > usr.bin/fstat dynamic build is overlinked > And how this is better than just removing the unneeded library from > the Makefile ? > > For the port consumption, I believe that the better solution is to > provide a pack of the .pc files describing base libraries, most likely > as port. We should definitely generate some pc files for our base libraries. We already have quite a few ports that need to hack around because of missing pc files for ssl for example. -- http://www.bluelife.at/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1355558294.7933.2.camel>