manpath change for ports ?

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:18:53 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <mat at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Le 21/04/2017 à 00:16, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:13:52AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> I am waiting on an exp-run to fix this once and for all.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218067
>>>
>>> When that is committed, anything can be added to the path pkgconfig
>>> searches, ports will always install it in the right place.
>>
>> Sorry but why? why not moving libdata/pkgconfig to lib/pkgconfig? what
>> is the rationale?
>
> Because a lot of build software know that on FreeBSD, the .pc file go
> in libdata/pkgconfig. If we move to some other place, we'll have a
> USES=pathfixmore for the next 25 years until everyone understands we
> moved it some place else.

1. It's not a lot.  Certainly the amount of software that does not know
   about libdata is way bigger.
2. You don't need USES=pathfixmore, you just change the fixup target
   in your patch to move files in the other direction.  This fixup can
   then be removed in 25 years (less if you let it print a warning)
   while your fixup will have to be kept forever.
3. Proper porting of emulators/wine to amd64 requires building 32 bit
   versions of dependencies.  Their pkgconfig files would go to
   lib32/pkgconfig when configured with --libdir=${PREFIX}/lib32 while
   something like libdata/pkgconfig32 would require yet more patches
   and fixups.

Any difference from Linux makes porting work harder, so there should be
good reasons and there are none whatsoever to use libdata/pkgconfig over
lib/pkgconfig.  I really don't get why portmgr keeps blocking this
change every time it comes up in the past few years.