Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux.
I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in these cases).
I think this is a sane default.
Then
On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux.
I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in these cases).
I
Dnia 2014-05-12, o godz. 21:24:26
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux.
I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
If we
Samuli Suominen wrote:
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in these cases).
I think this is a sane default.
Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
issues we are seeing today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for
static
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in these cases).
I think this is a sane default.
Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:48:16 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build
issues we are seeing today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for
static linking, there has been multiple bugs lately,
I honestly
Tom Wijsman wrote:
besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream;
I think there is agreement that this is the ideal, and that the
discussion is about what to do when that seems out of reach.
My key point is that it isn't Gentoo's responsibility or duty to fix
problems introduced
On 12/05/14 22:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
(Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config
files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.)
I don't think I said to ban them. I said that I want Gentoo to stay
close to upstream by default. I also said that maintainers shouldn't
be
On 05/12/2014 06:47 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux.
I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in these cases).
Samuli Suominen:
On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux.
I'm with you here, but what is the solution?
If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files
at all (in
On Mon, 12 May 2014 21:25:55 +0200
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Tom Wijsman wrote:
besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream;
I think there is agreement that this is the ideal, and that the
discussion is about what to do when that seems out of reach.
Yes, I think
On Mon, 12 May 2014 23:43:34 +0200
Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yeah, it's tricky; this makes me think, can't we perhaps install them
in a separate directory that pkg-config could check?
A quick collective brainstorm on IRC gives the idea that this is not
worth the effort, as this
Sure, this is a more complex problem.
My point is, for pkg-config files it is relatively easy to fix stuff
that depends on non-standard files (I can write a devmanual section
about that, but err... this is really trivial). The amount of these
downstream pkg-config files is not as big as you might
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It
On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I
On 10/05/14 12:39, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
Markos Chandras:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
some of which can be found on the Lua bug and
Markos Chandras:
Gentoo, almost all pkgconfig files come from upstream with minimal
modification. So a .pc file that is specific to Gentoo is a rare
exception, and it could cause confusion for users who installed Gentoo
on their development machine and who wish to develop new portable
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:00 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Our philosophy states that our tools should be a joy to use. If we add
random hackery on stuff that affects portability across distros, then
this doesn't hold true anymore.
Which one of our tools is at risk of not being a
Rich Freeman:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:00 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Our philosophy states that our tools should be a joy to use. If we add
random hackery on stuff that affects portability across distros, then
this doesn't hold true anymore.
Which one of our tools is at risk
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop
software for Linux. Instead (like valve), people start to develop for
certain distros only (like Ubuntu), because it's just too much work to
bother with all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote:
I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would
be added or renamed downstream (at least this will prevent new
violations).
I want to repeat my stance from the linked bug that making this
Hi,
(please avoid cross-list e-mails in the future if possible. Makes
threading horrible)
On 05/09/2014 07:21 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
On 05/09/2014 04:07 PM, hasufell wrote:
I ask the council to vote on banning pkg-config files that would
be added or renamed downstream (at least this will
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
properly?
Yes, when your instead of ... is not an option.
What other distributions
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that
properly?
Yes, when your instead of
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:10:50 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig
files instead of
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
The controversy only exists when upstream
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous
On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
30 matches
Mail list logo
