On Mit, 2006-02-08 at 10:06 -0600, Randy McMurchy 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.
>
> Yes, with system-installed NSS/NSPR the .pc files are broken, however,
> I don't think suppressing the installation of them is proper. Keep in
> mind that some packages use these .pc files to discover where NSS is
> installed.
>
> They look for the presence of firefox-nss/nspr.pc,
> thunderbird-nss/nspr.pc and mozilla-nss/nspr.pc.
IMO the real bug is that Firefox/Thunderbird upstream uses
firefox-{nss,nspr}.pc instead of just {nss,nspr}.pc or
mozilla-{nss,nspr}.pc (whatever they like, it just shouldn't depend on
the tarball you're downloading).
The packages that look for firefox-{nss,nspr}.pc have to do this to be
installable with the IMO broken upstream packages.
>
> 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.
Correcting the cause instead of correcting the symptom. As I mentioned
before, it may be more convenient not to remove and this may be the
right way for BLFS but that doesn't mean that this is the right way for
upstream or distros.
Jürg
--
Jürg Billeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
