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

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:00:38 GMT, Konstantin Oznobihin <bork at rsu.ru> wrote:

> 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 21:51:11 +0400
>
>  > V èt, 15. 07. 2004 v 18:34, Konstantin Oznobihin pí¹e:
>  >
>  > > > > 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 :).
>  >
>  > Yes I know, and unless someone go and patch them, they will. I'm
>  > planning to take on them for quite some time, but you know, no free
>  > time.
>
>  If you need some help I think I can take part of them. Anyway I do not
>  want my patch for pkgconfig be rejected. I seriously doubt that current

It is already rejected by three people (included me) in FreeBSD GNOME  
team. Breaking the hier(7) is not an opinion to me at all.

>  situation may force ports mantainers to change lib to libdata, as I said
>  it affects those who tries to use pkg-config on such ports. It is not a
>  good idea to put someone else's mistakes on them.

The maintainers/committers have to know the hier(7) and other FreeBSD  
rules/standards.

I personal prefer to see you complain about qmail being install in  
/var/qmail/, KDE in /usr/local/, QT in /usr/X11R6/, GNOME in /usr/X11R6/,  
GTK in /usr/X11R6/, mozilla in /usr/X11R6/, linux-mozilla in /usr/local/,  
etc instead pkgconfig that is following the hier(7) correct. The next  
thing that.. People will say, 'I am lazH^H^H^H^Hit's bikeshed, it's  
bikeshed, it's bikeshed!' Just because, none of them want to fix the  
things nor agree on the same things and are their own excuse. I am just  
trying merely point you that there's no need nor reason to break the more  
things in hier(7)/FreeBSD's standards for the others' sake.

Anyway, back to the point, the pkgconfig issue is that maintainer will  
have to fix or accept the patch without the approve by one of committer.  
Yes, I do think it has to be commit without the maintainer's approve  
unless someone disagree with me. Are you willing to create the patch(es)?  
Create a new USE_PKGCONFIG that will automatic patch on all ports no  
matter what, solve the pkg-plist and build/run depend, etc? Or do you have  
any better idea to fix other than break the hier(7)?

Perhaps, we should add that check pkgconfig stuff in the portlint?

BTW: Please, excuse my attitude and English grammar if there has any.

Cheers,
Mezz

> --
>  Konstantin Oznobihin <bork at rsu.ru>
>  Systems programmer and administrator
>  Computer Center of Rostov State University.
> In the beginning the Universe was created.  This has made a lot of people
>  very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.


-- 
mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org