[Patch] add pkg-config file support

Marc Lehmann schmorp at schmorp.de
Sat Mar 9 17:56:29 CET 2013

On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 01:12:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato <lu_zero at gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Why would I? It's not my job to educate gentoo. They can break programs
> > and make life harder for its users as much as they want.
> Had you spent enough time to follow the link
> you wouldn't have made an ass out of yourself.

Well, I actually read the whole thing. Again, even (I have read it last
year as well).

Sure, your sentence was just meant as an insult, but the amount of
incompetence is shows is a bit shocking.

I can even see that you spend the time to put lies about my religion (oh
really) into the comments, as well as lies about what I said.

It surely shouldn't come surprising to you that I will not have anything
to do with people such as you.

> > And this is a good example on why the policy violation of the previous
> > fedora libev maintainer causes problems now.
> So all your ridiculous tirade boils down to you spouting sentences at
> the wrong people.

Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what that even means.

> libverto needs a pkg-config, it is either fixing libverto or add
> something considered useful globally. The maintainer for the libverto
> ebuild asked for the pkg-config file and the maintainer for the libev
> ebuild, not knowing you are difficult about it, assumed that libev would
> add the pkg-config in the future, thus accepted.

Which just shows what a ridicuously bad decision it was to apply it.

Fedora has a clear upstream policy, and if it would have been followed
this mess wouldn't exist.


I know. Are you shouting because if you run out of arguments, you win a
fight by shouting?


I feel I am quite sane thank you. Sane enough not to deal with you in any
way anymore.

> "no, libev will not support that upstream" IN THE BUG GENTOO WOULD HAD

If gentoo would make it easy to do so, I might have considered. But gentoo
puts a very high barrier on doing so, and I have no obligation to jump
through their hoops.

The problem is not me running around on the internets all day and educate all
people about proper upstream policies.

Gentoo either has one, and it is being followed, or it doesn't have one.

Blaming me for bad decisions made by gentoo maintainers without ver
contatcing me is a bit childish.

> We have a quite stated policy that we try to follow upstream the best we
> can.

Well, it obviously wasn't followed in this case. If it were, the mess
wouldn't exist.

> Your delusional nonsense is just annoying the hell of me.

Uhm, gentoo couldn't follow upstream here, why? Do you atcually have
arguments or os insults the only thing you are capable of.

Insults do not impress me. Sound arguments do.

> > This is an unfounded claim. Repeating it will not make it true.
> True for me and my users.

I would say, not so.

Or do you mean "true" as in "gentoo followed its policy to follow upstream
the best they can"?

> I'm upstream for some software *vaguely* more spread and used than a
> good event loop library...

Yeah, and Bill Gates has a longer dick then both of us. I can see how the
length of my dick is relevant. Or wait, no, I can't.

Seriously, your only argument apart from insulting me is a dick size

Shame on your, for even attempting it...

> > I am sorry, but I think you are making this up. If you disagree, please
> > explain why you _had_ to rely on "non-standard AX_CHECK_LIBRARY".
> You use autotools, assuming you know what you use.

I have no clue that that is supposed to mean.

> This let you override the search paths using LIBEV_CFLAGS and LIBEV_LIBS.

autoconf lets me override saerch paths with CFLAGS and LIBS.

> > You can specify the nonstandard location of libev to a configure script
> > that doesn't even mention libev in any way, and it will just work. That's
> > zero overhead.
> Please bake an example using standard autotools.

   configure CFLAGS=... LIBS=...


   CFLAGS=... LIBS=... configure

Yes, ma, you can put it into your environment, too!

It's even dramatically less to type.

> The vanilla autotools way would be a check for the library and a check
> for the header.

Or no check at all.

> Your attitude towards people is really aggravating.

At least I have the good grace of using logical arguments instead of lies,
insults and penis size comparisons.

> I notified the interested party in Gentoo to undo the patch and fix
> libverto meanwhile.

So at least some good might come out of this.

Now, if only gentoo followed it's own policy...

Finally, I will put you on moderation - you don't have a right to post to
this list, but anybody is welcome as long as she or he can behave.

                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\

More information about the libev mailing list