Re: [LAD] Update

On 2018-08-28 17:37:26 (+0200), Ralf Mattes wrote:
> You seem to confuse two things here: pkgconf, the api compatible
> alternative to pkg-config, and pkgconf, the name of the program that
> provides pkg-config information to shell scripts and makefiles.
Hm, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If packaged correctly, pkgconf
is just a pkg-config replacement (done via symlinking).
So you can have pkg-config functionality, without the freedesktop
pkg-config (see Fedora or Arch package).

> Since pkgconf's sole purpose is the replacement of the original
> pkg-config implementation giving the binary a different name seems
> questionable.
Well, you can read anything into that if you like... or not.

> It's like writing a make-replacement and calling it murks and then
> expect the rest of the world to change their build systems. That takes
> a lot of hubris/ego ...
You seem to like judging from reading a lot.

However, I agree, that for Fons' packages calling `pkg-config` will be
the wiser choice for backwards compatibility.
As I was just merely suggesting to him a replacement for the obsolete
freetype-config script, I was using the current Arch default. What Fons
makes of that is out of my hands.
So, I'd rather not you play the blame game, but well, do as you please.

> > Additionally, this is all better, than relying on a convenience layer
> > hack job, such as the `freetype-config` script (that should've never
> > even been part of pkg-config to begin with).
>
> Who was talking about freetype-config?
Me, as it was in the Makefiles before and I had to patch it out.

Generally it would probably be advisable to chill this conversation down
a little and take a deep breath.

Best,
David

-- 
https://sleepmap.de

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev