pkg-config-lite

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Paul Bender 

> On 3/30/2012 9:49 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Paul Bender
> >
> >> Making pkg-config dependent on anything will ensure that pkg-config is
> >> dropped over time. The inane idea that it is ok to make pkg-config
> >> depend on a package that uses pkg-config is sure to guarantee that
> >> distributions will not update pkg-config. I maintain a Linux
> >> distribution and I have no plans to upgrade pkg-config because of the
> >> the inane decision to create this dependency. Because of this
> >> decision, I expect that within five years pkg-config will no longer
> >> exist. Nobody maintaining a distribution wants this circular
> >> dependency. Therefore, we will end up dropping pkg-config.
> >
> > Such a circular dependency is quite common in lower parts of the
> > toolchain, so people bootstrapping distributions have to deal with this
> > anyway.  For people not maintaining toolchains, it's not a problem.
> 
> It is not "quite common". I maintain a toolchain, so I know. The only
> circular dependency is between gcc and glibc. Based on your statement
> you must not maintain a toolchain.

There are quite a few more packages that need themselves to build, such
as ghc or sbcl.  http://wiki.debian.org/CircularBuildDependencies talks
about 20 of them.

> I will continue to use version 0.25, as all newer versions have
> decided to make it unnecessary difficult. If it continues, I have no
> doubt either pkg-config will fork or pkg-config will die.

You're of course free to use an older version.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are