Re: [PATCH] gnu: dub: Patch pkg-config name.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Danny,

Danny Milosavljevic <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:49:38 +0100
> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>
>> I think ‘dub-build-system’ could add it as an implicit input, much like
>> ‘gnu-build-system’ adds binutils as an implicit input.
>
> Okay, but it's directly used only by dub (it its function of building D 
> packages).
>
> I don't think D packages themselves even know what pkg-config is.
>
> The ldc 1.1.0 sources don't even mention "pkg-config" once - neither do any 
> of the D packages I tried except gtk-d. That one mentions it in comments how 
> to invoke gdc (which we didn't package) and rdmd (rdmd source itself doesn't 
> mention pkg-config either) - both are in shell expressions like gdc CoreGL.d 
> `pkg-config gtkd-3 gl --cflags --libs` and rdmd `pkg-config gtkd-3 --cflags` 
> -L-lGL -L-ldl CoreGL.d). No non-comment reference at all.

OK.

> That said, we could add pkg-config as an implicit input so that if D packages 
> decided to directly use it in the future they'd pick up the same one.

Yeah.

>> Or we could simply let people add pkg-config as an input when it’s
>> necessary, just like we do for ‘gnu-build-system’ packages.
>
> dub itself does automatically use pkg-config.
> It's as if make always used pkg-config (whether you write "pkg-config" into a 
> Makefile or not).
>
> Also, if pkg-config is not available dub will silently fallback to guessing. 
> It will not fail (and that's bad!).

OK.

Well I think the conclusion is that (1) we really need to make sure DUB
has pkg-config around one way or another, and (2) of all the solutions
we discussed, I don’t see one that is significantly “better” than the
other (it was worth discussing them though, because in many cases
there’s a solution that “looks better”).

So I’d say proceed as you prefer.

Thanks for taking the time to explain!

Ludo’.