On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:50 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:47 AM Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 20:09, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [..] > >> > >> The work required to fix packages affected by this disadvantage > >> (potentially) far outweighs any advantage > > > > > > Bollocks .. just sed/perl oneliner which will add BuildRequires: pkgconfig if in package is used any "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(<foo>) and remove from rpm dependencies autogenerator add "Requires: pkgconfig" if package has any on the list any pkgconfig file -> rebuild all affected packages. > > It should take ~1h for someone with proven packager priviledges. > > > > Note that removing /usr/bin/pkg-config from the build environment also > stops pkgconfig() Provides/Requires from being generated. Indeed, synthesizing pkgconfig() entries based on the presence of .pc files is not necessarily sufficient enough. .pc files can define aliases using their own Provides rules. The information is best generated by using pkgconf to dump the dependency graph. Similarly, the requirements may as well be generated by using pkgconf instead of trying to parse the .pc files with grep and sed itself as the syntax is not necessarily consistent. Many of the 'hotfix' releases in pkgconf involved mitigating problems where our parser would get confused by unexpected data in .pc files. William _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
