[gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
> -mike

I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
pkgconf work for us.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Luca Barbato]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29/04/12 15:11, 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 ?

Please do now =)

lu

- -- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+dzr8ACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjSsqgCgjCgbMwaUcck/jmVcxeb0rJtn
sRYAoJTzVDx/3ScZMi3gGqYUWgy3WFYc
=Ia4J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

On 04/29/12 19:29, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 29/04/12 15:11, 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 ?
> 
> Please do now =)
> 
> lu
> 
> 

Agreed. :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1197 bytes --]

On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
> 
> I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
> authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
> changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
> pkgconf work for us.

that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).

however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

On 30 April 2012 00:08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
>> On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
>>
>> I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
>> authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
>> changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
>> pkgconf work for us.
>
> that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).
>
> however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?
> -mike

The patches look pretty good. As far as the solution for pkg.m4...I
just gave it a second look and noticed it's GPLv2+ which means the
license is compatible with pkgconf's (I thought it was GPLv3, which
would've meant it wasn't compatible)...We'll work on getting those
patches and the pkg.m4 in the tree and getting a 0.2 release rolled
out in the next day or 2.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Luca Barbato]

On 29/04/12 21:17, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 30 April 2012 00:08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
>>> On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
>>>
>>> I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
>>> authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
>>> changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
>>> pkgconf work for us.
>>
>> that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).
>>
>> however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?
>> -mike
> 
> The patches look pretty good. As far as the solution for pkg.m4...I
> just gave it a second look and noticed it's GPLv2+ which means the
> license is compatible with pkgconf's (I thought it was GPLv3, which
> would've meant it wasn't compatible)...We'll work on getting those
> patches and the pkg.m4 in the tree and getting a 0.2 release rolled
> out in the next day or 2.

I just sent a couple of patches to pkg-config to update the m4 with some
additional macros to provide stock --with-foo, I guess they will be
useful for you as well, if you import it before I can send you the same
patchset.

lu



-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1633 bytes --]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> > On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
> > 
> > I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
> > authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
> > changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
> > pkgconf work for us.
> 
> that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).
> 
> however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?

Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package.
Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4
file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure
files independently of which impl particular user uses.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

On 30 April 2012 02:16, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
>> > On 29 April 2012 18:11, 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 ?
>> >
>> > I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
>> > authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
>> > changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
>> > pkgconf work for us.
>>
>> that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).
>>
>> however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?
>
> Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package.
> Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4
> file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure
> files independently of which impl particular user uses.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny

Well since the 3 primary implementations (fd.o pkg-config,
pkg-config-lite and pkgconf-0.2) now provide it, I don't see a huge
use for a seperate package. Also, the pkg.m4 used by all 3 seems to be
identical so...

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

On Monday 30 April 2012 02:16:40 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> > > I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
> > > authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make
> > > changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make
> > > pkgconf work for us.
> > 
> > that sounds really good.  i sent you some patches ;).
> > 
> > however, it's missing pkg.m4.  any thoughts on that ?
> 
> Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package.
> Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4
> file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure
> files independently of which impl particular user uses.

i debated that, but i'd rather not split the canonical pkg-config package into 
(quite literally) two files.  it makes upgrading dev-util/pkgconfig more of a 
hassle, and having these re-implementations take care of things themselves 
seems to be easier atm.  if that ends up not being the case, we can always 
revisit ... the current implementation doesn't preclude splitting.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Samuli Suominen]

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.

there are ones that try to be compatible, but are not. at this stage, 
the virtual would only include dev-util/pkgconfig.

summarizing:

+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)

-1 for adding anything even slightly incompatible to the virtual

[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.

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

[3] pkgconfig-openbsd is incompatible in many ways, for example, doesn't 
pass -pthread/-lpthread properly and breaks on -Wl,--as-needed systems. 
take a wild guess why I didn't add virtual for this in the first place...

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Samuli Suominen]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1634 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[heroxbd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Samuli Suominen]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 358 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Friday 04 May 2012 05:43:55 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> =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.

i followed up in the bug

> 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.

perl is for masochists ;)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Jeff Horelick]

I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY
tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the
virtual (YAAAAYYYY!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any
overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig
implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no
problems.

Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D

Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/05/2012 09:02 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY
> tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the
> virtual (YAAAAYYYY!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any
> overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig
> implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no
> problems.

Same USE="pkg-config" is now available in dev-util/pkgconfig-openbsd if 
anyone is intrested in perl based version

It won't get KEYWORDS anytime soon, but I'm happily accepting patches 
that are forwarded to OpenBSD bug tracking system too

>
> Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D
>