Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:40:11 GMT From: Konstantin Oznobihin <bork@rsu.ru> To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/69093: [patch] devel/pkgconfig does not search for .pc files in libdir/pkgconfig Message-ID: <200407151640.i6FGeBcm075921@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/69093; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Konstantin Oznobihin <bork@rsu.ru> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/69093: [patch] devel/pkgconfig does not search for .pc files in libdir/pkgconfig Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:34:47 +0400 > V čt, 15. 07. 2004 v 18:13, Konstantin Oznobihin píše: > > > > > > Depends on point of view. You call it a bug, we call it a feature. It > > > > > was deliberately added to our port of pkgconfig three years ago. It cost > > > > > us a lot of effort to keep up with it since. It help pkgconfig to > > > > > conform to FreeBSD hierarchy rules, which say "only shared binary files > > > > > under lib/, indirectly executed binaries under libexec/, non-executable > > > > > stuff under libdata/". I'm not sure we want to drop this feature, taking > > > > > the effort we put into it in past. > > > > > > > > I am definitely not want you to drop this feature. As you can see my > > > > patch just adds ${PREFIX}/lib to the existing list of directories. I > > > > agree that when it is possible we should make ports conform with FreeBSD > > > > rules. Also, I think that looking for things other than shared libraries > > > > in lib would not be a big violation of FreeBSD rules, especially if this > > > > behavior complies with rules of the paticular software. > > > > > > Existing behavior gives us a lever to force people to patch their ports > > > and conform to hierarchy. If we would allow both /lib and /libdata, how > > > many port maintainers do you think would bother to patch lib->libdata? > > > > > > Changing the location of .pc file is usually a one-line patch to > > > Makefile.in > > > Well, if it is just a one-line patch then I think that most of > > maintainers first or last will done it. I want to notice however that > > impossibility to use pkgconfig does not creates any problems to the > > maintainers of such ports, this situation hinders those who rely on them > > (e.g. lang/ruby18 which depends on openssl). > > OpenSSL is special, because it's part of base system. OpenSSL in base > does not come with .pc file at all! And there is a special OpenSSL > framework in ports, hidden behind USE_OPENSSL knob, which account for > various combinations of base and port OpenSSL. > > I agree that security/openssl port should install openssl.pc into > libdata/pkgconfig, and I believe dinoex@FreeBSD.org (maintainer of > openssl port) will welcome and apply patches in this regard. openssl was just one example, there are exists other ports which do the same thing (with .pc files of course :). Hmm, I do not see how the fact that openssl may be installed as a part of base system concerns this discussion. -- Konstantin Oznobihin <bork@rsu.ru> Systems programmer and administrator Computer Center of Rostov State University.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407151640.i6FGeBcm075921>