Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:46:21 -0400 as excerpted: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:18:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:05:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> >> >>> >> keeping things in @system doesn't make much sense: >>> >> - there's a penalty (as noted in old threads) >>> >> - it isn't actually required at runtime, so it's bloat on reduced >>> >> systems >>> > >>> > I think it's practically the same as compiler. >>> >>> that isn't a bad view point, but for the purposes of this discussion, >>> i don't think it's relevant :) >> >> Will it be a better view point if I opened a separate discussion about >> putting pkg-config in @system? It could get more attention probably. > > my answer would still be a very strong no
Agreed. Various people have in fact expressed a desire to REDUCE the number of packages in @system, for various reasons including both the parallel merge penalty and the bloat on reduced systems. In practice, there's not a lot of positive movement on actually reducing @system, but at minimum, unless there's *NO* other choice and in this case there clearly is, we shouldn't be ADDING packages to @system. For that reason, while I do see the reason why some would like pkg-config added to @system, the whole idea's pretty much a non-starter, as it WILL get a lot of push-back. In theory it /might/ be forceable, but I just don't see how the cost, political, in time to push thru, and technical (given the technical reasons listed above), makes it worth pursuing in the slightest. It's just not worth going there. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
