On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:57:21PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > Now that pkg-config is returning to the LFS book, it's time to > > consider how we deal with people using the current and previous LFS > > releases (i.e. 7.1 and 7.0) which are without it. > > > > I'll begin by suggesting that, transitionally and for an > > indeterminate period, we should keep it in BLFS, but with a big NOTE > > at the top, e.g. > > > > "Pkg-config is part of LFS, but was omitted from the 7.0 and 7.1 > > releases. If you are using a system which includes it, there is > > nothing more to do. If not, you should follow these instructions." > > > > And eventually, once we think new users will no longer be building > > fresh 7.0 or 7.1 systems, we can retire the page. I've stressed new > > users because I assume anyone using svn versions of LFS knows what > > they are doing. > > I think that's fine, and the same message for popt.
Let's see if I've understood you : 1. keep the instructions for both pkg-config and popt in BLFS, 2. but with that added text in both, 3. with the pkg-config commands changed to match LFS, 4. using Dan's pkg-config snapshot, 5. with popt replacing glib as the required dependency for pkg-config. If that's right, I'll do this part. After that, time to review the glib dependencies to see if any should revert to requiring (only) pkg-config. N.B. when popt eventually falls out of BLFS, the instructions on using doxygen will disappear. > > > Alternatively, we could point people to the development version of > > LFS with a different NOTE, e.g. > > > > "If you are using an LFS system without pkg-config (the 7.0 and 7.1 > > releases), please follow the instructions in the development LFS > > book at http://..."; > > > > For that, we could reduce the page to 'Introduction to pkg-config' > > with the description of what it is, and the note. I suppose we > > should drop the version in the BLFS page if we take this option. > > > > Does either version of this sound useful ? If so, any better > > wording ? > > Just adding to LFS-SVN is sufficient IMO. > I'm not sure that I understood that comment. You've now added it to LFS, I *think* you mean we only need to fix the build instructions and not add a link to LFS-svn ? > > Reverting the pkg-config/glib dependency changes is another matter. > > I do think that BLFS pkg-config should use the same version of as LFS-svn. > Agreed. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
