On Monday 30 April 2012 15:42:35 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it > >> runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee. > >> > >> for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to > >> enable a lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as > >> such, i'd like to introduce a virtual/pkgconfig that allows for > >> selection of simpler (but compatible) implementations. > >> > >> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but > >> there is also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they should be > >> compatible with the canonical pkg-config. they aren't yet in the > >> tree, but will be once we agree on this topic. > >> > >> any comments ? > > > > Maybe if pkgconf proves really good we could finally add pkg-config dep > > to @system... > > Uh no... > I thought we are in process of minimizing @system and correcting > dependencies in ebuilds accordingly > --depclean should be able to clean out things like pkg-config which are > not needed at runtime
yarp. i think we've managed to whittle down @system to mostly runtime only packages at this point. don't want to reverse that trend. if we split epatch out of eutils.eclass and into epatch.eclass, we could probably get `patch` out of @system too. but maybe that's crazy talk. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
