[Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/3] package/libtomcrypt: add pkgconfig support

[Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>]

On 02/05/2021 12:27, Peter Seiderer wrote:
> Hello Arnout,
> 
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 15:18:42 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/04/2021 23:15, Peter Seiderer wrote:
>>> Hello Thomas,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:14:53 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:55:25 +0200
>>>> Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any specific motivation? Does this had a chance of going
>>>> upstream ?
>>>
>>> For an custom project, previously developed on with cmake on ubuntu (which
>>> provides the pkgconfig file)....
>>>
>>> Can try to suggest upstream...
>>
>>  Adding a .pc file in Buildroot usually doesn't make much sense, because no
>> package that depends on it is going to use it. So yes, please organise this
>> upstream.
> 
> But a buildroot provided library should be usable for buildroot packages AND
> out-of-tree/custom packages?

 What I mean is the following. A .pc file is useless unless a package that uses
libtomcrypt actually uses pkg-config to configure it. If the .pc file is not
provided by libtomcrypt itself, but only by buildroot, then no package that
depends on libtomcrypt is going to use pkg-config, because they "think" there is
no .pc file for libtomcrypt. So we would have to patch each and every user of
libtomcrypt to use pkg-config instead of whatever discovery mechanism they have.
And none of these patches are upstreamable, because there is no .pc file outside
of buildroot.


> Nevertheless, did take a second look at the libtomcrypt sources, already
> providing a libtomcrypt.pc.in template (but only used/installed in case
> of 'makefile.shared'/'makefile.unix' and the buildroot compile uses the
> default 'makefile' one)...

 That of course changes the story completely.

 Do you know if there is a reason for us not to use makefile.unix, so we don't
need to sed the .pc file ourselves?

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> Regards,
> Peter
> 
>>
>>  Therefore, I've marked this patch as Rejected.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Arnout
>