On 28 January 2016 at 05:04, Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On 27 January 2016 at 14:16, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 27 January 2016 at 11:45, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> The Requires will take care of that, so you can just bin the entire >>>> 'Libs:' field until you need one: >>>> >>> In theory this will be sufficient, but Eric wasn't buying it [1] :'-(. >>> He's main consern (if I understood him correctly) is to stay >>> consistent with the existing libdrm_* providers, regardless if things >>> look a bit quirky. >> >> I suspect he was missing that 'Requires' also pulls in the relevant >> flags from those libraries, so PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM_VC4, >> [libdrm-vc4]) is equivalent to PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM_VC4, [libdrm >> libdrm-vc4]), if libdrm-vc4.pc has 'Requires: libdrm'. > > What I heard Emil arguing to me was that a pkg-config request for --libs > From libdrm_vc4 shouldn't link against libdrm. I'm fine with dropping > Libs and Cflags, as long as we still link libdrm like normal. This all > seems like pointless bikeshedding, though. I was arguing about using best practises - do not overlink (or transient deps as known by cmake folks). It's unfortunate that you dismiss it, and effectively the work of dozens on the topic, as bike-shedding :-( Then again, if your mind it set - so be it. I never meant to offend/alienate you. Sorry if I came out too harsh. Emil _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
