On Thursday 04 September 2003 00:32, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Ainsi parlait Michael Scherer : > > i suggest the last solution, but, maybe someone see a problem ? > > Yes, coherency with other development tools. > How many packages really requires autoconf/automake ? I guess less > than 1%. However, autoconf/automake are rpm-build dependencies. Here > we have more packages requiring what appears some new build tool, and > we are gonna add it as an explicit require for each of them. This is > plainly silly.
this will affect maybe 10 packages, which is not too much. i guess that only 10 packages, because nobody see the problem until now. this 10 package will be used to : - build rpm, and it will use pkgconfig, because of autoconf, most of the time. - build from source, and it will use pkgconfig, for configure script, because library authors put pkgconfig in their macros. - develop a software, which means that people will have to figure what are the good argument for gcc, and this is where they will use pkgconfig. I guess that documentation will also say to use pkgconfig. but, of course, it can be used without it. autoconf/automake is only used when developping a application, and when we patch a configure script for rpm building. Patching a script to suit our needs is almost the same as developping a application. That's why packages should not requires autotools. Most of the time, people don't need it. pkgconfig is different, because, most of the time, people will need it for a proper use of the library ( -devel rpm of the library ). I do not say to add pkgconfig requires on each library, but only to the ones that have almost 90% chances of using it. -- Michaël Scherer
