Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bojan@rexursive.com designates
 203.171.74.242 as permitted sender)
Subject: [RFC] Multilib issues of apreq2-config
From: Bojan Smojver <bojan@rexursive.com>
To: APREQ List <apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:43:47 +1100
Message-Id: <1195695827.10628.29.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As the maintainer of libapreq2 for Fedora, I had to do a bit of
pkgconfig hacking recently on current libapreq2 (2.09-rc2) in order to
get it to be multilib compliant.

You can see that work here:

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/libapreq2/devel/

The files in question are libapreq2.pc.in,
libapreq2-2.09-pkgconfig.patch and libapreq2.spec (you can see sed-ing
done in there to facilitate the changes).

Essentially, current configuration script apreq2-config, which gets
installed in /usr/bin, turns out to be different for 32-bit and 64-bit
versions of the library (both of which can be installed in parallel),
something that is not desirable and prevents getting the correct
information from the script for one of the architectures.

So, instead of hardcoding variables into the script, they are taken from
the pkgconfig file (located in /usr/lib/pkgconfig
and /usr/lib64/pkgconfig respectively), keeping the script the same for
both architectures.

The new script then contains something like this:

libdir=`pkg-config --variable=libdir libapreq2`
LIBS=`pkg-config --libs libapreq2`
LDFLAGS=`pkg-config --libs libapreq2`
INCLUDES=`pkg-config --cflags-only-I libapreq2`
LDFLAGS=`pkg-config --libs libapreq2`

Would the patches along those lines be useful to the project or should I
continue having this as Fedora specific patches?

-- 
Bojan