ports/69093: [patch] devel/pkgconfig does not search for .pc files in libdir/pkgconfig

[Konstantin Oznobihin]

The following reply was made to PR ports/69093; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Konstantin Oznobihin <bork at rsu.ru>
To: pav at FreeBSD.org
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit at 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 èt, 15. 07. 2004 v 18:13, Konstantin Oznobihin pí¹e:
 > 
 > > > > > 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 at 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 at rsu.ru>
 Systems programmer and administrator
 Computer Center of Rostov State University.