Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the virtual (Y!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no problems. Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 05/05/2012 09:02 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote: I didn't mention this last night (probably because I was EXTREMELY tired), but the entire gentoo-x86 tree has been converted to the virtual (Y!!! *kermitflail*). As long as you don't use any overlays, you should now be able to switch your pkgconfig implementation to pkgconf[pkg-config] or pkg-config-lite with no problems. Same USE=pkg-config is now available in dev-util/pkgconfig-openbsd if anyone is intrested in perl based version It won't get KEYWORDS anytime soon, but I'm happily accepting patches that are forwarded to OpenBSD bug tracking system too Please give them (mainly pkgconf) a try and see if everything works. :D
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 2 May 2012 12:06, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote: the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg- 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. pkg-config-lite and pkgconf are in the tree now, and there is a virtual/pkgconfig which allows for these three packages (with the default remaining the same). i think the migration process will be: - if you want to do the grunt work of converting random packages, go for it - i'll update repoman to warn about packages depending on dev-util/pkgconfig and suggest the virtual instead -mike If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories, it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or so, but I have well over half the tree converted. just dev-util/pkgconfig - virtual/pkgconfig and if the dev-util/pkgconfig is versioned, i've been dropping the version since 0.26 is the only fd.o version in the tree and the alternatives are all 0.26 compatible. Here's the list i've been working off of: http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/dindex/dev-util/pkgconfig (It's not the most up-to-date, but it works well enough.) I am willing to finish this myself, but as I said, help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, 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 ? -mike =dev-util/pkgconfig- with USE=internal-glib in Portage. I'm hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it. I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for doing so, so I can decide whether I should be rolling also a snapshot ebuild for ~arch or not. And entirely different thing... And I'll look into making pkgconfig-openbsd suitable for the virtual today too, but I'm not expecting to KEYWORD it ever since even the OpenBSD guys declare it only partly compatible in their docs/code.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:30:31 Jeff Horelick wrote: If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories, it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or so, but I have well over half the tree converted. isn't this what scripts are for ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:43:55 Samuli Suominen wrote: =dev-util/pkgconfig- with USE=internal-glib in Portage. I'm hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it. I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for doing so, so I can decide whether I should be rolling also a snapshot ebuild for ~arch or not. i followed up in the bug And I'll look into making pkgconfig-openbsd suitable for the virtual today too, but I'm not expecting to KEYWORD it ever since even the OpenBSD guys declare it only partly compatible in their docs/code. perl is for masochists ;) -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
Hi Mike, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org writes: the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee. any comments ? I would vote for it! I feel ill to bootstrap glib and pkg-config. It feels worse to call for a equal foot as gcc/binutils/glibc. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.gtk%2B.devel.general/21523 pkg-config's functionality is too simple to be involved with this chaos. Looking forward to it. Yours, Benda pgpsP27uGxyU3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote: the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg- 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. pkg-config-lite and pkgconf are in the tree now, and there is a virtual/pkgconfig which allows for these three packages (with the default remaining the same). i think the migration process will be: - if you want to do the grunt work of converting random packages, go for it - i'll update repoman to warn about packages depending on dev-util/pkgconfig and suggest the virtual instead -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package. Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4 file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure files independently of which impl particular user uses. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 30 April 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package. Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4 file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure files independently of which impl particular user uses. -- Best regards, Michał Górny Well since the 3 primary implementations (fd.o pkg-config, pkg-config-lite and pkgconf-0.2) now provide it, I don't see a huge use for a seperate package. Also, the pkg.m4 used by all 3 seems to be identical so...
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Monday 30 April 2012 02:16:40 Michał Górny wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? Maybe we should provide it independently in some other package. Considering the implementations are supposed to be compatible, the .m4 file should work fine with all of them. And we'll create same configure files independently of which impl particular user uses. i debated that, but i'd rather not split the canonical pkg-config package into (quite literally) two files. it makes upgrading dev-util/pkgconfig more of a hassle, and having these re-implementations take care of things themselves seems to be easier atm. if that ends up not being the case, we can always revisit ... the current implementation doesn't preclude splitting. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, 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. there are ones that try to be compatible, but are not. at this stage, the virtual would only include dev-util/pkgconfig. summarizing: +1 for creating the virtual and migrating the tree to use virtual/pkgconfig. although, on the otherhand, you could just use package.provided for thesetype of unsupported experiments (like i'm doing with pkgconfig-openbsd) -1 for adding anything even slightly incompatible to the virtual [1] pkgconf is not compatible as per Comment #5 of bug 413849. needs to follow same version scheme as f.d.o's pkg-config. [2] pkg-config-lite should be punted from tree as per bug 414101, unnecessarily bundling glib code. there is no real problem with using external glib. not liking it doesn't make it a problem. it's perfectly bootstrappable and the bootstrapping is documented (plus ebuilds does this for users so it's nothing you should even be thinking about...) [3] pkgconfig-openbsd is incompatible in many ways, for example, doesn't pass -pthread/-lpthread properly and breaks on -Wl,--as-needed systems. take a wild guess why I didn't add virtual for this in the first place...
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 30 April 2012 14:27, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/30/2012 01:11 AM, 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. [1] pkgconf is not compatible as per Comment #5 of bug 413849. needs to follow same version scheme as f.d.o's pkg-config. not compatible != wrong. There is NO CASE in which a developer would hit this bug and customize their check in a way that would make it only work with fd.o pkg-config. In *EVERY* real-world case, the pkgconf behaviour would work just as well or better.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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... -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysingervap...@gentoo.org 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Monday 30 April 2012 14:27:29 Samuli Suominen wrote: +1 for creating the virtual and migrating the tree to use virtual/pkgconfig. although, on the otherhand, you could just use package.provided for thesetype of unsupported experiments (like i'm doing with pkgconfig-openbsd) ok, with no one against the virtual, i'll implement it [1] pkgconf is not compatible as per Comment #5 of bug 413849. needs to follow same version scheme as f.d.o's pkg-config. there seems to be miscommunication there. it's compatible. [2] pkg-config-lite should be punted from tree as per bug 414101, unnecessarily bundling glib code. not getting punted. what little glib code it bundles (and it really is quite little) is hand extracted. it doesn't just drop the glib tarball in there. would be nice if the eglib replacement (that bluez used to use) grew legs ... then we could even use that. otherwise, much of the glib funcs are brain dead simple and can be replaced with #defines. g_free() for example is a waste of space. there is no real problem with using external glib. not liking it doesn't make it a problem. it's perfectly bootstrappable and the bootstrapping is documented (plus ebuilds does this for users so it's nothing you should even be thinking about...) glib-2 is not an acceptable hard requirement. its hard requirement on full locale/multibyte support is a non-starter. [3] pkgconfig-openbsd is incompatible in many ways, for example, doesn't pass -pthread/-lpthread properly and breaks on -Wl,--as-needed systems. i have no interest in that -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
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 ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? -mike I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/04/12 15:11, 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 ? Please do now =) lu - -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+dzr8ACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjSsqgCgjCgbMwaUcck/jmVcxeb0rJtn sRYAoJTzVDx/3ScZMi3gGqYUWgy3WFYc =Ia4J -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 04/29/12 19:29, Luca Barbato wrote: On 29/04/12 15:11, 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 ? Please do now =) lu Agreed. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 30 April 2012 00:08, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? -mike The patches look pretty good. As far as the solution for pkg.m4...I just gave it a second look and noticed it's GPLv2+ which means the license is compatible with pkgconf's (I thought it was GPLv3, which would've meant it wasn't compatible)...We'll work on getting those patches and the pkg.m4 in the tree and getting a 0.2 release rolled out in the next day or 2.
Re: [gentoo-dev] new virtual/pkgconfig to support lighter alternatives
On 29/04/12 21:17, Jeff Horelick wrote: On 30 April 2012 00:08, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote: On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org 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 ? I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have authorisation from nenolod (the primary pkgconf developer) to make changes and stuff, so I can upstream any changes necessary to make pkgconf work for us. that sounds really good. i sent you some patches ;). however, it's missing pkg.m4. any thoughts on that ? -mike The patches look pretty good. As far as the solution for pkg.m4...I just gave it a second look and noticed it's GPLv2+ which means the license is compatible with pkgconf's (I thought it was GPLv3, which would've meant it wasn't compatible)...We'll work on getting those patches and the pkg.m4 in the tree and getting a 0.2 release rolled out in the next day or 2. I just sent a couple of patches to pkg-config to update the m4 with some additional macros to provide stock --with-foo, I guess they will be useful for you as well, if you import it before I can send you the same patchset. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
