FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-30-2012, 06:40 PM
Jeff Horelick
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On 30 April 2012 14:27, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. *it requires glib-2. *it runs
>> pkg-
>> config when building. *glib-2 requires pkg-config. *whee.
>>
>> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. *but we'd like to enable a
>> lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. *as such, i'd like
>> to
>> introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for selection of simpler (but
>> compatible) implementations.
>
>
> [1] pkgconf is not compatible as per Comment #5 of bug 413849. needs to
> follow same version scheme as f.d.o's pkg-config.

not compatible != wrong. There is NO CASE in which a developer would
hit this bug and customize their check in a way that would make it
only work with fd.o pkg-config. In *EVERY* real-world case, the
pkgconf behaviour would work just as well or better.
 
Old 04-30-2012, 07:07 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
> runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
>
> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to
> enable a lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as
> such, i'd like to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for
> selection of simpler (but compatible) implementations.
>
> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but
> there is also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be
> compatible with the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the
> tree, but will be once we agree on this topic.
>
> any comments ?

Maybe if pkgconf proves really good we could finally add pkg-config dep
to @system...

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 04-30-2012, 07:42 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400
Mike Frysinger<vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:


the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.

for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to
enable a lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as
such, i'd like to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for
selection of simpler (but compatible) implementations.

we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but
there is also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be
compatible with the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the
tree, but will be once we agree on this topic.

any comments ?


Maybe if pkgconf proves really good we could finally add pkg-config dep
to @system...



Uh no...
I thought we are in process of minimizing @system and correcting
dependencies in ebuilds accordingly
--depclean should be able to clean out things like pkg-config which are
not needed at runtime
 
Old 04-30-2012, 09:12 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On Monday 30 April 2012 15:42:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
> >> runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
> >>
> >> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to
> >> enable a lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as
> >> such, i'd like to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for
> >> selection of simpler (but compatible) implementations.
> >>
> >> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but
> >> there is also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be
> >> compatible with the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the
> >> tree, but will be once we agree on this topic.
> >>
> >> any comments ?
> >
> > Maybe if pkgconf proves really good we could finally add pkg-config dep
> > to @system...
>
> Uh no...
> I thought we are in process of minimizing @system and correcting
> dependencies in ebuilds accordingly
> --depclean should be able to clean out things like pkg-config which are
> not needed at runtime

yarp. i think we've managed to whittle down @system to mostly runtime only
packages at this point. don't want to reverse that trend.

if we split epatch out of eutils.eclass and into epatch.eclass, we could
probably get `patch` out of @system too. but maybe that's crazy talk.
-mike
 
Old 04-30-2012, 09:17 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On Monday 30 April 2012 14:27:29 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> +1 for creating the virtual and migrating the tree to use
> virtual/pkgconfig. although, on the otherhand, you could just use
> package.provided for thesetype of unsupported experiments (like i'm
> doing with pkgconfig-openbsd)

ok, with no one against the virtual, i'll implement it

> [1] pkgconf is not compatible as per Comment #5 of bug 413849. needs to
> follow same version scheme as f.d.o's pkg-config.

there seems to be miscommunication there. it's compatible.

> [2] pkg-config-lite should be punted from tree as per bug 414101,
> unnecessarily bundling glib code.

not getting punted. what little glib code it bundles (and it really is quite
little) is hand extracted. it doesn't just drop the glib tarball in there.

would be nice if the eglib replacement (that bluez used to use) grew legs ...
then we could even use that.

otherwise, much of the glib funcs are brain dead simple and can be replaced
with #defines. g_free() for example is a waste of space.

> there is no real problem with using
> external glib. not liking it doesn't make it a problem. it's perfectly
> bootstrappable and the bootstrapping is documented (plus ebuilds does
> this for users so it's nothing you should even be thinking about...)

glib-2 is not an acceptable hard requirement. its hard requirement on full
locale/multibyte support is a non-starter.

> [3] pkgconfig-openbsd is incompatible in many ways, for example, doesn't
> pass -pthread/-lpthread properly and breaks on -Wl,--as-needed systems.

i have no interest in that
-mike
 
Old 05-02-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

Hi Mike,

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs
> pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.

> any comments ?

I would vote for it!

I feel ill to bootstrap glib and pkg-config. It feels worse to call for
a equal foot as gcc/binutils/glibc.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.gtk%2B.devel.general/21523

pkg-config's functionality is too simple to be involved with this chaos.

Looking forward to it.

Yours,
Benda
 
Old 05-02-2012, 04:06 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is
> also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be compatible with the
> canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the tree, but will be once we
> agree on this topic.

pkg-config-lite and pkgconf are in the tree now, and there is a
virtual/pkgconfig which allows for these three packages (with the default
remaining the same).

i think the migration process will be:
- if you want to do the grunt work of converting random packages, go for it
- i'll update repoman to warn about packages depending on dev-util/pkgconfig
and suggest the virtual instead
-mike
 
Old 05-04-2012, 09:30 AM
Jeff Horelick
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On 2 May 2012 12:06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. *it requires glib-2. *it runs pkg-
>> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is
>> also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". *they should be compatible with the
>> canonical pkg-config. *they aren't yet in the tree, but will be once we
>> agree on this topic.
>
> pkg-config-lite and pkgconf are in the tree now, and there is a
> virtual/pkgconfig which allows for these three packages (with the default
> remaining the same).
>
> i think the migration process will be:
> *- if you want to do the grunt work of converting random packages, go for it
> *- i'll update repoman to warn about packages depending on dev-util/pkgconfig
> and suggest the virtual instead
> -mike

If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories,
it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has
literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or
so, but I have well over half the tree converted.

just dev-util/pkgconfig -> virtual/pkgconfig and if the
dev-util/pkgconfig is versioned, i've been dropping the version since
0.26 is the only fd.o version in the tree and the alternatives are all
0.26 compatible.

Here's the list i've been working off of:
http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/dindex/dev-util/pkgconfig
(It's not the most up-to-date, but it works well enough.)

I am willing to finish this myself, but as I said, help would be
greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
Old 05-04-2012, 09:43 AM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:

the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.

for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a
lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as such, i'd like to
introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for selection of simpler (but
compatible) implementations.

we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is also
"pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be compatible with the canonical
pkg-config. they aren't yet in the tree, but will be once we agree on this
topic.

any comments ?
-mike


=dev-util/pkgconfig-9999 with USE="internal-glib" in Portage. I'm
hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it.


I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for
doing so, so I can decide whether I should be rolling also a snapshot
ebuild for ~arch or not.




And entirely different thing...

And I'll look into making pkgconfig-openbsd suitable for the virtual
today too, but I'm not expecting to KEYWORD it ever since even the
OpenBSD guys declare it only partly compatible in their docs/code.
 
Old 05-04-2012, 04:19 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

On Friday 04 May 2012 05:30:31 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories,
> it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has
> literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or
> so, but I have well over half the tree converted.

isn't this what scripts are for ?
-mike
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org