Subject: Re: Proposal: buildlink for X11
To: Frederick Bruckman <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/21/2001 09:54:45
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:39:38AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> I'm not following you. If you use -Ishadow-tree/include, and the
> shadow-tree has every include from evere package that's in the base
> tree, what has that bought you?
No, the shadow tree only has the headers and libraries from the contents
of xbase.tgz and xcomp.tgz.
> > > More to the issue, the way I understand it, buildink is supposed to be
> > > addressing a deficiency of GNU configure. "xmkf" and "imake" don't pick
> > > up random things that happen to be found in /usr/X11R6/include, so what's
> > > the problem?
> > The fact is that the vast majority of software in pkgsrc uses GNU configure.
> > Whether it's a deficiency or not that it tries to make the most featureful
> > software by using everything available in the environment is debatable, but it
> > is usually a concern only for software packagers that desire building the same
> > package consistently regardless of what's in the environment. But that's what
> > we do in pkgsrc.
> I understand that. My question is, why are you build-linking "imake"
> packages, which _don't_ share GNU configure's philosophy.
I concede your point that imake packages probably don't need the buildlink
infrastructure, though, and I intend to reorganize the bsd.pkg.mk file so
that buildlink-x11 isn't needed. I will wait a few days for other comments
but I'm registering my intent at this point.
-- Johnny Lam <email@example.com>