On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:41:42PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > 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." > >>>
> >> 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, > > Only for a while until others have a chance to catch up ok > > > 2. but with that added text in both, > > Yes > > > 3. with the pkg-config commands changed to match LFS, > > Yes > > > 4. using Dan's pkg-config snapshot, > > Yes, jsut committed in LFS. Should to pkg-config-0.27 whe it is released. > Of course, whenever that is. > > 5. with popt replacing glib as the required dependency for > > pkg-config. > > Yes. That's in LFS too. > > > 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. > > Yes. I suspect other similar situations for some LFS packages. > No worries. > >>> 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. > > Yes, it's OK for now. Looking at the future, I think we should have a > package freeze for both LFS and BLFS on 1 August and use August as a > testing period marking BLFS packages as tested in LFS 7.2. Then release > a coordinated LFS/BLFS 7.2 on 1 September. > > > 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 ? > > Leave the links in the 40 or so packages to pkg-config, but have > pkg-config point to lfs-svn pkg-config/popt. > > -- Bruce I lost the plot here! I thought you agreed above to keeping details of both these packages in BLFS, in the short term, mirroring what is in LFS plus pro tempore extra details for popt. Now you seem to be saying that pkg-config and popt should instead point to lfs-svn ? Also, please note that in some of the previous mails I was under the impression I'd changed deps to point to glib2 intstead of pkg-config. You are correct, the change was from glib2 to pkg-config. Unfortunately, some of these packages may be broken now that the pkg-config we are using does not require a full install of glib2. 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
