On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:47:52PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On 27/09/2011 22:35, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 
> > With respect, Matt, it's the glib2 part that is bloat.  I remember
> > some discussion, but I forget why we did it
> 
> pkg-config upstream, as of 0.26, removed the internal Glib-1 that it 
> used to bundle, therefore forcing us to install a system-wide copy and 
> all of its dependencies.  Now, if Glib had a modular configuration, and 
> if pkg-config documented which modules it needed, and if those modules 
> didn't need pcre/libffi/python, then that would be wonderful; we could 
> just install the subset of Glib2 we require, and advise folks to install 
> the full Glib2 package in BLFS.
> 
> This is frustrating.  As you say, it's Glib that's causing the bloat, 
> and ultimately, what pkg-config provides is useful functionality for a 
> base system.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Matt.

 Thanks for the clarification - I had a feeling svn was using a
newer version, but nothing handy to look at.

 OK, in this case, why do we need the newer version ?  I know that
in the minimal LFS system, current versions are usually preferred
(although I can think of cases - kbd comes to mind, but I'm sure
there have been others over the years - where we say "no thanks".

 Once you get into BLFS territory, it is, regrettably, common to
have to stick with an old version of a package because a newer
version either breaks the build, or brings in unwanted required
dependencies.  Well, that is unless you build a fully-and-only-gnome
or fully-and-only-kde desktop.

 For pkgconfig, every configure script that I've looked at recently
which *cares* about a minimum version (cups doesn't, no doubt one or
two other packages don't) is only concerned to see that we are using
at least 0.16 (or, often, an earlier version, particularly 0.9.0,
but I think I saw several 0.11).  The package requiring 0.16 is
glib-2.30.0 : I don't follow what changed in pkgconfig, but for the
moment I find it hard to believe that 0.22 will be inadequate.

 If we went back to 0.0.22, would we re-open any problems (in our
build, or in the test suite, or indeed for any packages I don't know
about that really do need 0.0.26) that 0.0.26 has fixed ?

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to