On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:48:34PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > Hi, > > I apologize for the lack of proper in-reply-to headers for this, I > don't normally read lfs-dev mailing list. > > Ken Moffit wrote at Thu May 31 17:18:25 MDT 2012: [wearing my pedant's hat ]
s/fi/fa/ : in my case, the spelling of my surname is the same as the current spelling of the town from where my male ancestors came, although others use several different spellings. [...] > > The releases of pkgconf are not published on github due to limitations > in the way github does releases (inconsistent md5sums are a problem, > there is no ability to provide an autoconf-generated configure script, > etc). > > They are published here: http://tortois.es/~nenolod/distfiles/. > > I apologize for the confusion here, I figured most people > experimenting with pkgconf would look at the way that Gentoo > implemented it. > We got there by a different path. No matter. > > But that is called > > nenolod-pkgconf-pkgconf-0.8-2-g495f586.zip so I imagine it is 0.8.2 > > No, that is 2 commits past the pkgconf-0.8 tag. Again, this is a > limitation in the way github does releases. > > > and I suspect that *could* cause funnies in packages that wish to > > check the version (ISTR 0.9.0 and 0.16 were the big changes for > > pkg-config, and I'm fairly sure some things require at least one or > > the other of those versions. > > Packages check the pkg-config version by using > --atleast-pkgconfig-version or by querying the pkg-config virtual. We > tell those scripts we are pkg-config 0.26. Our behaviour is generally > the same as pkg-config 0.26 as well. > > > > > No, he's thought of that, grep VERSION found > > ./pkg.h:#define PKG_PKGCONFIG_VERSION_EQUIV "0.26" > > > > I'd much prefer to deal with a released version and a tarball, so > > on that basis pkgconfiglite sounds as if it will be a better bet. > > As previously mentioned, pkgconf has tarballs that you can use. I > have updated the README.md file on github to point at the tarballs, > too. Great. > > About pkg-config-lite, it's not likely to be maintained, and the way > it is implemented is a massive security issue because what they do is > take the parts of glib that are depended on and bolt them into > pkg-config sources. If there is a problem in those sources, > pkg-config-lite might be vulnerable even though glib is already fixed. > The pkg-config-lite maintainer posted his patch to the pkg-config > mailing list and proposed that the pkg-config authors maintain it > instead, which is why I think it is a doomed project. > > Regarding compatibility, Gentoo (and derivitives) have switched to > using pkgconf. No problems have been reported in the 0.8 release > series regarding pkgconf-specific regressions. > > William Thanks for your comments, but in the meantime we've done something different (although it is perhaps related to the pkg-conf-lite maintainer's post on pkg-config : I've no idea). ĸen, still going through the changes in BLFS from when pkg-config dropped out of LFS -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
