Subject: Re: unexpected behaviour of PKG_CONFIG=no ...
To: Luke Mewburn <>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 04/22/2004 23:10:41
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:49:08 +1000
Luke Mewburn <> wrote:

> Why not unconditionally install all SUPPORT_FILES and
> conditionally (based on PKG_CONFIG!=NO (?)) install CONF_FILES.
> Otherwise, what's the effective difference between CONF_FILES
> and SUPPORT_FILES, other than the variable name?


# CONF_FILES are pairs of example and true config files, used much like
#       MLINKS in the base system.  At post-install time, if the true config
#       file doesn't exist, then the example one is copied into place.  At
#       deinstall time, the true one is removed if it doesn't differ from the
#       example one.  SUPPORT_FILES is used the same way, but the package
#       admin isn't prompted to customize the file at post-install time.

I guess there may be some situations where it may be interesting to use
SUPPORT_FILES to install files under PKG_SYSCONFDIR... or maybe not... so
enabling their installation unconditionally doesn't seem TRT (WRT PKG_CONFIG
semantics) :P


Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
The NetBSD Project -