> On Mar 26, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Ankit Agarwal <an...@ankit.im
> <mailto:an...@ankit.im>> wrote:
>
> It is a convention to name the .pc file after the library link-name, so we
> can determine which .pc file to ask pkg-config for by parsing the .modulemap
> file in the Swift package.
>
> what about the cases where .pc file doesn't matches the link-name from
> modulemap for eg : gtk+2 or 3 has these link-names: `link "gtk-2.0"`, `link
> "gtk-3.0"` and .pc files are `gtk+-2.0.pc`, `gtk+-3.0.pc`
>
> One option could be an optional in Package -> `pkgconfig: "gtk+-2.0"`
>
> ----
>
> Probably not in scope of this proposal, I noticed that pkg-config can give
> versions of the system libs, would it be a good idea for user to mention a
> version range of system lib while creating the modulemap wrapper package.
Our decision here was that if you have CFoo then CFoo2 is the name of the
package for the major version bump to 2.
The rationale for this is: this is how it basically works in the C library
packaging system currently.
Major version bumps are much rarer and the approach taken by system packagers
has been to make entirely new packages for them. Even the .pc files are
versioned thus, at least, this is all I’ve ever seen.
It’s not clean, but we’re building on top of what is there.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
