Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (165 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Could we decide on an official policy about pkgconfig() style BuildRequires?
  • From: Cristian Morales Vega <reddwarf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:27:43 +0100
  • Message-id: <CAOWQn3STbbr3aRZmmXdjJ+3pnJnrQTje+q8Q5LgBxd6aa6=oZA@mail.gmail.com>
On 4 July 2012 15:03, Richard Guenther <rguenther@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

On 4 July 2012 09:27, Richard Guenther <rguenther@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, and I forget they do not work for multilibs as pkgconfig has no
designed way to distinguish them.

First and most important: How can I distinguish them when *not* using
pkgconfig() BuildRequires?

BuildRequires: glibc-devel-32bit

So you need an openSUSE specific hack... that lets you add extra
provides with a single extra line.
mkbaselibs could be modified to automatically add
"pkgconfig(X)(32bit)" provides to them if that would be really
necessary. But really, this is sooo openSUSE specific that I don't
care if pkgconfig(X) style provides are not used in these cases.

And even if pkg-config itself has no way to distinguish them
/usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh could be modified to include arch
information (upstream, to preserve cross-distro compatibility).

That's true. But then we are not using pkgconfig (well, we are not
anyways, we are just creating fake pkgconfig(foo) provides).

Yes, the provides are the only important thing here.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups