[PATCH] util-macros: Addition of a meta data file xorg-macros.pc.in used by XORG_INSTALL

[Carl Worth]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:22:39 -0500, Gaetan Nadon <gaetan.nadon at videotron.ca> wrote:
> I'd like to set aside the 'work required for the transition' issue and
> focus on the architecture issue for a moment. 

Hi Gaetan,

I hope I don't come across as incredibly dense, but I still don't
understand why this .pc file must be installed in datadir not libdir.

> Fedora states that their packages must comply with the File System
> Hierarchy Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/). This standard states
> the location of files on the filesystem. For /usr/share
> (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREARCHITECTUREINDEPENDENTDATA)
> it says:

Yes, I'm familiar with the difference between "lib" and "share"
according to the FHS. But just because this pkg-config file *could* go
there doesn't mean that it *should*.

In fact, my xorg-macros.pc file installed in
${prefix}/share/xorg-macros.pc still refers to non-shareable
directories, such as:

	libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib

But regardless, even if it were made entirely shareable, why not just
install to libdir like all the other pkg-config files?

Surely people will be building xorg-macros as just another one of many
X.org modules all installed to some prefix, (and they would build all of
these modules for each architecture of interest).

And surely, you're not arguing that there's some important savings that
would be obtained by carefully giving xorg-macros special treatment
while building?

And all of this is really to just copy in a generic INSTALL file that
the autotools would copy in for us otherwise without any pkg-config file
in the first place. My mind reels...

> It will be some work to make the change, but others have done it. I am
> willing to create appropriate patches and collect the review tags.

You can't patch everyone's build setup. That's stored in places like
~/.bashrc on random laptops all over the world. If we have to break the
setup there should really be some demonstrable gain, and I just don't
see it for xorg-macros.pc and XORG_INSTALL.

If this ship sailed already with Xtrans, then that's unfortunate. I
probably would have complained then too if I had noticed...

> So far we have one tool (cross-compile) that relies on this
> architecture.

How would cross-compiling not work if xorg-macros.pc were installed in
libdir? Maybe this is the point I'm missing.

-Carl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091202/92d86fc8/attachment.pgp