On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Alex Goncharov <alex-goncha...@comcast.net> wrote: > ,--- You/Alexander (Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:37:40 +0100) ----* > | > ,--- You/Jeremy (Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:19:12 -0600) ----* > | > | The pkg-config is not GNOME. Even the GTK+2 is not GNOME. > | > | I am VERY surpised about that you are whining over it. > | > > | > In other words, you think that making base X11 blocks (such as drivers > | > and libxcb) depend on Gnome, per this definition in bsd.port.mk: > | > > | > # USE_GNOME - A list of the Gnome dependencies the port has (e.g., > | > # glib12, gtk12). Implies that the port needs Gnome. > | > # Implies inclusion of bsd.gnome.mk. See bsd.gnome.mk > | > # or http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/docs/porting.html > | > # for more details. > | > > | > is the right thing, correct? > > First off, thanks for your detailed reply and getting to the core of > my question (obviously, the size of pkg-config is not an issue.) > > | To repeat what mezz said, the X stuff does not depend upon > | GNOME. The X stuff depends upon pkgconfig. pkgconfig is also used by > | GNOME. It's a little and useful infrastructure thing. With pkgconfig > | you can check if software Y is installed, which version it has, > | which include path you need to compile it, and which libs to link to > | if you want to use it in your software Z. All it does is to do "echo > | $libs" or "echo $includes" or similar. The benefit is that you as a > | author of software Y just need a little config file which lists > | everything, and pkgconfig is responsible for all the common tasks > | like version check and printing. It also unifies the interface if > | you need to query for software. > > To tell you the truth, I know what pkg-config does -- a very useful > tool, indeed. > > | It originated in GNOME, but as it is small and light, it is used now > | in more or less everything. For example openssl uses it too (but > | unfortunately openssl in the FreeBSD base system does not install > | the corresponding config file), but this does not make openssl > | depend upon GNOME. > > A perfect example -- you can see the difference in how X and openssl > approach this: > > ------------------------------ > $ grep -i 'pkgconfig[^/]*$' Mk/bsd.openssl.mk Mk/bsd.port.post.mk > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk security/openssl/Makefile x11-drivers/xf86-video-nv/Makefile| > less > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk:# app - requires pkgconfig, don't install shared libraries (I > guess) > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk:USE_GNOME+= pkgconfig > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk:USE_GNOME+= pkgconfig > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk:USE_GNOME+= pkgconfig > Mk/bsd.xorg.mk:USE_GNOME+= gnomehack pkgconfig > security/openssl/Makefile: -e > 's|lib/pkgconfig|libdata/pkgconfig|g' \ > ------------------------------ > > | It just looks to you like "GNOME" because the config variable in our > | ports infrastructure is spelled "USE_GNOME". This is for historical > | reasons, it could also be named "USE_INFRASTRUCTURE" (it > | automatically adds suitable BUILD_DEPENDS, RUN_DEPENDS and/or > | LIB_DEPENDS and additional stuff just by adding a keyword). > > And this is my point -- change the make files appropriately. > > While Gnome is great, many people don't use it and don't want to be > confused and be quietly dragged into Gnomedom. > > The use of USE_ make file variable should conform to what bsd.port.mk > says, IMHO. > > | pkgconfig could be extracted from the USE_GNOME stuff, and it could > | even maintained by someone else than the FreeBSD gnome team, but the > | FreeBSD gnome team is doing a good job at maintaining it, and > | there's no benefit in extracting pkgconfig from USE_GNOME. > > I am not sure I agree with you -- but why would this matter, right?
Please send patches. Kthxbye. -- Florent Thoumie f...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
