On 2/8/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/08/06 10:03 CST:
>
> > Thanks, Juerg. I think I may make a patch that uses the
> > MOZ_NATIVE_NSPR and MOZ_NATIVE_NSS (introduced in the firefox nss
> > patch) to suppress the installation of firefox-{nss,nspr}.pc. I think
> > we're all in agreement that these are inappropriate.
>
> They look for the presence of firefox-nss/nspr.pc,
> thunderbird-nss/nspr.pc and mozilla-nss/nspr.pc.
Which packages look for {firefox,thunderbird}-{nss,nspr}.pc? We know
evolution looks for mozilla-{nss,nspr}.pc.
> Tell me, what do we gain by patching to remove them, when we patch
> to *fix* them already. To me, removing them is a step backward.
Do we patch to fix them? We patch so that the NSS and NSPR packages
provide pkgconfig files. This is appropriate. We patch firefox so
that it knows the proper way to handle the --enable-system-{nss,nspr}
arguments. We have an sed to fix the firefox-{nss,nspr}.pc files to
pass along information about a different package. This is the only
fix to the firefox-*.pc files.
I say we gain correctness. firefox and thunderbird do not provide
NSS/NSPR functionality if they were built with the system libs.
Therefore, they shouldn't be informing anything else how to link to
these libraries.
To me, this is like a compatibility symlink. It might be good for the
book as a catch all, but I don't want it on my system. So, if you
feel like it's really best to have those .pc files in the book, then I
have no problem dropping the subject and moving on. But I'm
definitely extending the patch for myself to suppress those files.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
