On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted: > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense: > >>> >> - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads) > >>> >> - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on > >>> >> reduced systems > >>> > > >>> > I think it's practically the same as compiler. > >>> > >>> that isn't a bad view point, but for the purposes of this > >>> discussion, i don't think it's relevant :) > >> > >> Will it be a better view point if I opened a separate discussion > >> about putting pkg-config in @system? It could get more attention > >> probably. > > > > my answer would still be a very strong no > > Agreed. > > Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number > of packages in @system, for various reasons including both the > parallel merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In > practice, there's not a lot of positive movement on actually reducing > @system, but at minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice and in this > case there clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system. > > For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like > pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a > non-starter, as it WILL get a lot of push-back. In theory it /might/ > be forceable, but I just don't see how the cost, political, in time > to push thru, and technical (given the technical reasons listed > above), makes it worth pursuing in the slightest. It's just not > worth going there. But you're aware that cost of pkgconf is very little? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
