On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:50:16 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> >> > One thing that comes into my mind is finally making pkgconfig >> >> >> > a required, implicit part of toolchain (or @system). Since we >> >> >> > have pkgconf now, this is more feasible than before. >> >> >> >> >> >> i don't think making it part of the toolchain makes sense. i'd >> >> >> rather not add it to @system simply to keep a few packages from >> >> >> sometimes failing. >> >> > >> >> > I'd add it to @system because a lot of packages actually need to >> >> > DEPEND on pkgconfig because they use libraries using .pc files. >> >> > And the number is going to increase, hopefully. >> >> >> >> sure, but keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense: >> >> - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads) >> >> - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on reduced >> >> systems >> > >> > I think it's practically the same as compiler. >> >> that isn't a bad view point, but for the purposes of this discussion, >> i don't think it's relevant :) > > Will it be a better view point if I opened a separate discussion about > putting pkg-config in @system? It could get more attention probably.
my answer would still be a very strong no -mike
