[clc-devel] Renaming core/pkgconfig to core/pkg-config
Hi, I'd like to rename core/pkgconfig to core/pkg-config, since the name of the package changed upstream (see http://pkg-config.freedesktop.org/wiki/). pkgconfig is currently listed in ~5 ports' dependency lists, so these could be easily updated. However, I think pkg-config should be treated as an essential package, since it's used by so many packages these days. That way, we could drop it from all of the depency lists ;) Any objections to renaming the port and removing it from any dependency list? Regards, Tilman
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi,
Hallo,
I'd like to rename core/pkgconfig to core/pkg-config, since the name of the package changed upstream (see http://pkg-config.freedesktop.org/wiki/).
pkgconfig is currently listed in ~5 ports' dependency lists, so these could be easily updated.
However, I think pkg-config should be treated as an essential package, since it's used by so many packages these days. That way, we could drop it from all of the depency lists ;)
Any objections to renaming the port
No
and removing it from any dependency list?
Yes, at least at the moment ;-) I think we should first find a reasonable solution how to deal with core dependencies. To keep the thinks simple I'd suggest to list only runtime but _no_ buildtime dependencies. A exception from this can/should be glibc, because it's needed by every programm. If we go for this, all the build stuff like gcc, make, libtool, sed etc. must be installed to build ports. Open question here is where/how we list/mark these ports, to give the users an overview about these core-core ports ? kind regards Jürgen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Hi, On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 14:03:08 +0100, Juergen Daubert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote: > > Hi, > > Hallo, > > > I'd like to rename core/pkgconfig to core/pkg-config, since the name of > > the package changed upstream (see > > http://pkg-config.freedesktop.org/wiki/). Sounds reasonable. [...] > > Any objections to renaming the port > > No No objections > > > and removing it from any dependency list? > > Yes, at least at the moment ;-) I think we should first find a > reasonable solution how to deal with core dependencies. > > To keep the thinks simple I'd suggest to list only runtime but _no_ > buildtime dependencies. A exception from this can/should be glibc, > because it's needed by every programm. Same for gcc which is currently needed by all C++ programs unless linked statically. > If we go for this, all the build stuff like gcc, make, libtool, sed > etc. must be installed to build ports. > > Open question here is where/how we list/mark these ports, to give > the users an overview about these core-core ports ? At CRUXCon, we planned to: - integrate this list in pkgutils - give no option in 'setup' to not install those - add a warning to pkgrm when you try to remove one of those (it should be possible, but require some additional argument to force it). I'd say we start by compiling a list on the Wiki, and link it from the package guidelines (and maybe the FAQ) once we get the impression it's fine. Best regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:06:56AM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
At CRUXCon, we planned to: - give no option in 'setup' to not install those
I disagree about this point. I think we shouldn't force the user to do anything. A warning if they try to deselect it is ok but forcing them is silly. Up to now I don't have any reasons why you should deselect them but perhaps anybody else has them. Regards Viper
participants (4)
-
Johannes Winkelmann -
Juergen Daubert -
Simon Gloßner -
Tilman Sauerbeck