On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:04:44PM -0400, Jason E. Hale wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 20:50:34 Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Here is a plan for pkg-config, I hope it will statisfy everyone.
> >
> > First we need to get rid of pkg-config, since 0.26 we can't boostrap it
> > anymore because it d
On Monday, July 23, 2012 20:50:34 Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Here is a plan for pkg-config, I hope it will statisfy everyone.
>
> First we need to get rid of pkg-config, since 0.26 we can't boostrap it
> anymore because it depends on glib which depends on pkg-config.
>
> Hopefully we have a viab
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:31:52PM +, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:37:08 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> > Looking at the bsd.kde4.mk it looks like there's not much logic to
> > detect the "right" kind of dependency. It seems to use suffixes _build
> > and _run to achieve the sa
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:37:08 +0300 Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> Looking at the bsd.kde4.mk it looks like there's not much logic to
> detect the "right" kind of dependency. It seems to use suffixes _build
> and _run to achieve the same effect as pkgconfig:build and
> pkgconfig:run would have.
Right.
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/22/2012 17:50, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2012 07:51, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
am part of tea
On 07/22/2012 17:50, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 07/22/2012 07:51, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>>> You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
>>> am part of team that maintaining the bsd.gnome.mk. Yes it will be
>>> re-
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/22/2012 07:51, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
>> am part of team that maintaining the bsd.gnome.mk. Yes it will be
>> re-add if anyone plan to remove it, because I already
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:51:40 -0500 Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
>> am part of team that maintaining the bsd.gnome.mk. Yes it will be
>> re-add if anyone plan to remove it, b
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:51:40 -0500 Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
> am part of team that maintaining the bsd.gnome.mk. Yes it will be
> re-add if anyone plan to remove it, because I already have planned add
> the :build/:run feature i
On 07/22/2012 06:10, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:56:49 -0700 Doug Barton wrote:
>> KDE folks Jason's suggestion (by private e-mail for some reason)
>> was that we add pkgconfig to USE_GNOME= for every port that depends on
>> kdelibs that doesn't already have it; since almost
On 07/22/2012 07:51, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> You need to start to respect the people's work and plan, Doug. Also I
> am part of team that maintaining the bsd.gnome.mk. Yes it will be
> re-add if anyone plan to remove it, because I already have planned add
> the :build/:run feature in the bsd.gnom
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> KDE folks Jason's suggestion (by private e-mail for some reason)
> was that we add pkgconfig to USE_GNOME= for every port that depends on
> kdelibs that doesn't already have it; since almost, if not actually all
> of them are currently re
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:56:49 -0700 Doug Barton wrote:
> KDE folks Jason's suggestion (by private e-mail for some reason)
> was that we add pkgconfig to USE_GNOME= for every port that depends on
> kdelibs that doesn't already have it; since almost, if not actually all
> of them are currently re
KDE folks Jason's suggestion (by private e-mail for some reason)
was that we add pkgconfig to USE_GNOME= for every port that depends on
kdelibs that doesn't already have it; since almost, if not actually all
of them are currently relying on the run-dep side effect. I can't see
any reason NOT t
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/21/2012 13:48, Jason E. Hale wrote:
>
>> IMO I don't really see what the hurry is. This has been the behavior for
>> years.
>
> Yes, and some of us have been annoyed by it for years as well. :)
>
> The current behavior is wrong, and beco
On 07/21/2012 13:48, Jason E. Hale wrote:
> IMO I don't really see what the hurry is. This has been the behavior for
> years.
Yes, and some of us have been annoyed by it for years as well. :)
The current behavior is wrong, and becomes increasingly painful in a
world where most FreeBSD users a
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:38:39 Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > The problem with simply removing
> >
> > pkgconfig_RUN_DEPENDS= pkg-config:${PORTSDIR}/devel/pkg-config
> >
> > from bsd.gnome.mk is that there are ports that indirectly depend on
> > pkg-config for their build through other port
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jason E. Hale wrote:
> On Friday, July 20, 2012 23:35:10 Doug Barton wrote:
>> Baptiste already volunteered to do an exp-run for this topic on Monday.
>> If you don't have time to get your changes ready before then IMO we
>> should go ahead with removing the line f
On Friday, July 20, 2012 23:35:10 Doug Barton wrote:
> Baptiste already volunteered to do an exp-run for this topic on Monday.
> If you don't have time to get your changes ready before then IMO we
> should go ahead with removing the line from bsd.gnome.mk. Making that
> correct fix now won't negati
On 07/20/2012 22:02, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> I prefer to leave it alone and port a feature that I have added in the
> bsd.mate.mk (repocopied from bsd.gnome.mk) that support 'USE_GNOME=
> foo:build bar:run foobar'. The 'foobar' without the :* means that it's
> both build/run time dependency. It's
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> For those that are confused about why they are receiving this message,
> ongoing discussion in ports@ as to the fact that pkg-config should not
> be a run-dep for any ports.
>
>
> On 07/20/2012 15:26, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> http://people.freeb
For those that are confused about why they are receiving this message,
ongoing discussion in ports@ as to the fact that pkg-config should not
be a run-dep for any ports.
On 07/20/2012 15:26, Doug Barton wrote:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/pkg-config-run-deps.txt
>
> Looks like bsd.gnome.m
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 14:26, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> Sqlite3 isn't the only one with a bogus dependency to pkg-config, for
>> example audio/libsndfile does the same by using "USE_GNOME=gnomehack
>> pkgconfig" instead of doing the proper thing (tm) whi
On 07/20/2012 14:26, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> Sqlite3 isn't the only one with a bogus dependency to pkg-config, for
> example audio/libsndfile does the same by using "USE_GNOME=gnomehack
> pkgconfig" instead of doing the proper thing (tm) which is patching
> Makefile.in to install the .pc file to $(
-Original Message-
From: Kimmo Paasiala
Sqlite3 isn't the only one with a bogus dependency to pkg-config, for
example audio/libsndfile does the same by using "USE_GNOME=gnomehack
Libxml2 is another, maybe grepping ports tree against pkg-config might be a
start.
-Reko
___
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>> Julien Laffaye wrote:
>>> I am not trying to state what it should or should not do.
>>> I am trying to guess why it is doing things like it does.
>>
>> I apologize for being patro
-Original Message-
From: Kimmo Paasiala
I'm wondering if the dependency is removed then will all ports that
link to sqlite3 pull in pkg-config if it's not installed?
After cleaning downstream ports and using portupgrade -f -O removes the
dependency from that port, downstream is still
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Julien Laffaye wrote:
>> I am not trying to state what it should or should not do.
>> I am trying to guess why it is doing things like it does.
>
> I apologize for being patronizing then.
>
> Is any committer here willing to remove sqlite3
Julien Laffaye wrote:
> I am not trying to state what it should or should not do.
> I am trying to guess why it is doing things like it does.
I apologize for being patronizing then.
Is any committer here willing to remove sqlite3's dependency on
pkg-config, or should I file a PR? (A grep through
On 7/20/2012 9:24 PM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
Julien Laffaye wrote:
Yes it is needed at runtime if you are a developper using sqlite3 and
pkg-config:
to use `pkg-config sqlite3 --cflags` and `pkg-config sqlite3 --libs` in
your $APP build process.
It's $APP that needs pkg-config as a build depend
Julien Laffaye wrote:
> Yes it is needed at runtime if you are a developper using sqlite3 and
> pkg-config:
> to use `pkg-config sqlite3 --cflags` and `pkg-config sqlite3 --libs` in
> your $APP build process.
It's $APP that needs pkg-config as a build dependency. Sqlite3 does
not need to depend o
On 07/20/2012 12:15, Julien Laffaye wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 9:03 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Julien Laffaye
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2012 8:36 PM, Reko Turja wrote:
> Its use is not limited to Gnome, as you can see it's used in the build
> process of databases/
On 7/20/2012 9:03 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Julien Laffaye wrote:
On 7/20/2012 8:36 PM, Reko Turja wrote:
Its use is not limited to Gnome, as you can see it's used in the build
process of databases/sqlite3 and there are many other ports that have
nothing to do
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Julien Laffaye wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 8:36 PM, Reko Turja wrote:
>>>
>>> Its use is not limited to Gnome, as you can see it's used in the build
>>> process of databases/sqlite3 and there are many other ports that have
>>> nothing to do with Gnome that use it the sam
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
> I'm testing out the pkgng system and somehow a port managed to pull
> devel/pkg-config into one low level port polluting whole db. "pkg check"
> just wants to install the annoying thing. Is there any way to get rid of
> that erroneous dependenc
On 7/20/2012 8:36 PM, Reko Turja wrote:
Its use is not limited to Gnome, as you can see it's used in the build
process of databases/sqlite3 and there are many other ports that have
nothing to do with Gnome that use it the same way. The only thing that
is wrong with it is that ends up being a run
Its use is not limited to Gnome, as you can see it's used in the build
process of databases/sqlite3 and there are many other ports that have
nothing to do with Gnome that use it the same way. The only thing that
is wrong with it is that ends up being a run time dependency of
sqlite3 instead of bei
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Reko Turja wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bryan Drewery
>
>
> On 7/20/2012 11:57 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
>>
>> I'm testing out the pkgng system and somehow a port managed to pull
>> devel/pkg-config into one low level port polluting whole db. "pkg check"
>
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Drewery
On 7/20/2012 11:57 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
I'm testing out the pkgng system and somehow a port managed to pull
devel/pkg-config into one low level port polluting whole db. "pkg check"
just wants to install the annoying thing. Is there any way to get
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 11:57 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
>> I'm testing out the pkgng system and somehow a port managed to pull
>> devel/pkg-config into one low level port polluting whole db. "pkg check"
>> just wants to install the annoying thing. Is there
On 7/20/2012 11:57 AM, Reko Turja wrote:
> I'm testing out the pkgng system and somehow a port managed to pull
> devel/pkg-config into one low level port polluting whole db. "pkg check"
> just wants to install the annoying thing. Is there any way to get rid of
> that erroneous dependency?
Which po
41 matches
Mail list logo
