-devel rpms with pkgconfig files should 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[Rex Dieter]

Currently on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
it includes:
- MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.

I'd suggest amending this to say (something like)
- MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package, 
and the -devel package include 'Requires: pkgconfig'

We've got quite a few such packages, and lots of things will break when 
FE switches to the minimal buildroot that no longer includes pkgconfig.

-- Rex

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 07:31 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
>  it includes:
>  - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
>  
>  I'd suggest amending this to say (something like)
>  - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package, 
>  and the -devel package include 'Requires: pkgconfig'
>  
>  We've got quite a few such packages, and lots of things will break when 
>  FE switches to the minimal buildroot that no longer includes pkgconfig.  
I'm not so sure I agree with this.  The -devel packages can be used
w/out pkgconfig and many are.  Forcing pkgconfig on other packages may
not be the best case.  I feel that if you are building a package, and
THAT package needs to make use of pkg-config to find the right things,
then that package should BuildRequires: pkgconfig.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Rex Dieter]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 07:31 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> > it includes:
> > - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
> >
> > I'd suggest amending this to say (something like)
> > - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package, 
> > and the -devel package include 'Requires: pkgconfig'
> >
> > We've got quite a few such packages, and lots of things will break when 
> > FE switches to the minimal buildroot that no longer includes pkgconfig. 
>  
>  I'm not so sure I agree with this.  The -devel packages can be used
>  w/out pkgconfig and many are.  
Most -devel packages with .pc files (that I'm aware of) can *not* be 
used w/out pkgconfig.

>  Forcing pkgconfig on other packages may not be the best case. 
pkgconfig is small and pulls in no additional dependencies.  I see no 
downside.

-- Rex

[Rex Dieter]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 07:31 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> >> it includes:
> >> - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest amending this to say (something like)
> >> - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel 
> >> package, and the -devel package include 'Requires: pkgconfig'
> >>
> >> We've got quite a few such packages, and lots of things will break 
> >> when FE switches to the minimal buildroot that no longer includes 
> >> pkgconfig. 
> >
> > I'm not so sure I agree with this.  The -devel packages can be used
> > w/out pkgconfig and many are. 
>  
>  Most -devel packages with .pc files (that I'm aware of) can *not* be 
>  used w/out pkgconfig. 
Let me rephrase, apps that BR: -devel packages that support pkg-config 
(most) often (need to) use pkg-config to detect the presense of the 
-devel package.

-- Rex

[Rex Dieter]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 07:31 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> >>> it includes:
> >>> - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel 
> >>> package.
> >>>
> >>> I'd suggest amending this to say (something like)
> >>> - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel 
> >>> package, and the -devel package include 'Requires: pkgconfig'
> >>>
> >>> We've got quite a few such packages, and lots of things will break 
> >>> when FE switches to the minimal buildroot that no longer includes 
> >>> pkgconfig. 
> >>
> >> I'm not so sure I agree with this.  The -devel packages can be used
> >> w/out pkgconfig and many are. 
> >
> > Most -devel packages with .pc files (that I'm aware of) can *not* be 
> > used w/out pkgconfig.
>  
>  Let me rephrase, apps that BR: -devel packages that support pkg-config 
>  (most) often (need to) use pkg-config to detect the presense of the 
>  -devel package. 
In particular, every app that uses auto* tools, and uses the 
PKG_CHECK_MODULES macro in ./configure.  I can vouge that this includes 
*every* kde application I know.  Please don't force app packagers to 
have to figure out if their ./configure script(s) use this macro or not, 
I'd much rather things "just work".

-- Rex

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 08:45 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Please don't force app packagers to 
>  have to figure out if their ./configure script(s) use this macro or not, 
>  I'd much rather things "just work".  
I do believe this was similar to the same argument that led to
buildroots being full installs.  Don't make app packages figure out what
package names they need in the build root, instead make it "just work".

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Rex Dieter]

Jesse Keating wrote:

>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 08:45 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Please don't force app packagers to
> > have to figure out if their ./configure script(s) use this macro or not,
> > I'd much rather things "just work".
>  
>  I do believe this was similar to the same argument that led to
>  buildroots being full installs.  Don't make app packages figure out what
>  package names they need in the build root, instead make it "just work". 
Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many
GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental.

-- Rex

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  
>  Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many
>  GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental. 
True, I'm addressing mentality.

We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
chime in?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Paul Howarth]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many
> > GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental.
>  
>  True, I'm addressing mentality.
>  
>  We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
>  chime in? 
I think that if the usual method of using a -devel package is by using 
its .pc file with pkgconfig, then pkgconfig should be a dependency of 
that package. If the .pc file is provided as a convenience but most 
users of a particular -devel package don't use it, then don't add the dep.

Paul.

[Ville Skyttä]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:27 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>  Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > 
>  > We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
>  > chime in?
>  
>  I think that if the usual method of using a -devel package is by using 
>  its .pc file with pkgconfig, then pkgconfig should be a dependency of 
>  that package. If the .pc file is provided as a convenience but most 
>  users of a particular -devel package don't use it, then don't add the dep.
That sounds nice, but I think it's too subjective to be an effective
practical rule that would really achieve much at all.

Note that no matter if the *.pc file is actually every used by anything,
there's always the issue of installing stuff into unowned dirs if the
dependency is not there (%{_libdir}/pkgconfig in this case), which is an
explicit MUST no-no in the current review guidelines.  This assumes that
only pkgconfig owns the dir; owning it in all packages would feel
somewhat silly to me.

My +1 to always adding the dependency in packages that install *.pc
files.

[Michael J. Knox]

Ville Skyttä wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:27 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>  
> >Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >>We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
> >>chime in?
> >
> >I think that if the usual method of using a -devel package is by using 
> >its .pc file with pkgconfig, then pkgconfig should be a dependency of 
> >that package. If the .pc file is provided as a convenience but most 
> >users of a particular -devel package don't use it, then don't add the dep.
>  
>  
>  That sounds nice, but I think it's too subjective to be an effective
>  practical rule that would really achieve much at all.
>  
>  Note that no matter if the *.pc file is actually every used by anything,
>  there's always the issue of installing stuff into unowned dirs if the
>  dependency is not there (%{_libdir}/pkgconfig in this case), which is an
>  explicit MUST no-no in the current review guidelines.  This assumes that
>  only pkgconfig owns the dir; owning it in all packages would feel
>  somewhat silly to me.
>  
>  My +1 to always adding the dependency in packages that install *.pc
>  files.
>   
I will add a +1 one to Ville's comment. Seems the most reasonable.

Michael

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 22:48 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>  Note that no matter if the *.pc file is actually every used by
> anything,
>  there's always the issue of installing stuff into unowned dirs if the
>  dependency is not there (%{_libdir}/pkgconfig in this case),  
AH, there is that.  I suppose then it would make sense that if you're
installing .pc files to Requires: pkgconfig.  Lets move this up the
ladder to get ratified.  Spot?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Enrico Scholz]

ville.skytta(a)iki.fi (Ville Skyttä) writes:

>  Note that no matter if the *.pc file is actually every used by
> anything,
>  there's always the issue of installing stuff into unowned dirs if the
>  dependency is not there (%{_libdir}/pkgconfig in this case), which is an
>  explicit MUST no-no in the current review guidelines. 
Can be solved by a 'pkgconfig-filesystem' package providing only this
directory. Similar issue exists for /usr/share/aclocal & friends which
is more problematic because the owning package brings in a huge and
often unneeded perl dependency.

Perhaps it's time to think about a 'filesystem-development' package
providing filesystem structure for development packages.



Enrico

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:55 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  > 
>  > Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many
>  > GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental.
>  
>  True, I'm addressing mentality.
>  
>  We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
>  chime in? 
Purity would place pkgconfig in a BuildRequire for the package that uses
it rather than a Require in the -devel package providing the .pc. 

However, if I have -devel packages installed it's either because I'm
building someone else's software from scratch or because I'm writing
some software of my own.  In the former case, it's likely that upstream
is using pkgconfig, so having it automatically install keeps me from
wondering why the configure script fails.  In the latter case, unless
I'm doing a quick one off I probably want to use pkgconfig to portably
find information to compile and link with the library.

So I think a Require: line in the package providing the .pc is better
for the end-user than a BuildRequire: in the consuming package.

-Toshio

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:55:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

>  On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>  > 
>  > Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many
>  > GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental.
>  
>  True, I'm addressing mentality.
>  
>  We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to
>  chime in? 
I'm all for increasing the number of -devel packages which "Requires:
pkgconfig".

If the .pc file suggests that the -devel package cannot be used
conveniently without querying pkg-config, "Requires: pkgconfig" ought to
be added. This is very likely the case when headers are installed in
non-standard locations (e.g. paths or libs including version information!)
or if the .pc file adds flags and dependencies. Without running
pkg-config, some configure scripts fail to find installed headers and
libraries and fall back to using an included copy of a library or
switching off a feature.

Apart from that, any package which stores a .pc file in $PKG_CONFIG_PATH
should not create unowned directories and hence should "Requires:
pkgconfig" anyway.