[swift-evolution] Draft Proposal SwiftPM System Module Search Paths
colin at springsandstruts.com
Thu Mar 24 17:18:17 CDT 2016
On Mar 24, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Max Howell <max.howell at apple.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for sending out this proposal. I admit I’m somewhat ignorant of the current state of SwiftPM so feel free to point me at existing resources if I’m missing basic things.
>> You don’t cover it in your proposal, but does this mean pkg-config is now a dependency for SwiftPM? I may be mistaken but it doesn’t seem as though pkg-config is installed on the base OS X system. (This leads me to assume it’s an optional dependency.)
> This is a good point, I’ll revise the proposal.
> My intentions were: if available, use it, if not, then things may not build. Long term we could parse pkg-config files ourselves since the format is very basic which would be preferable since “your package graph *may* or *may not* build” is hardly fun
Great! Myself, I would just parse the pc files straight away. Avoiding dependencies seems highly desirable for something this low in the stack.
>> Your proposal suggests the set of supported package mangers will be closed. What about folks using new, or non-standard package managers?
> They can add their package manager to the supported list via a Pull Request.
This is a surprising answer! Just to be clear―what functionality, specifically, is this enabling?
>> What about packages that are installed system-wide without a package manager (e.g. with ./configure && make && make install)?
> Such packages should come with a .pc file.
>> This may be covered elsewhere, but about the case of a C package that is normally system-wide but is currently being hacked on by the user? (For example to while debugging it, or writing bindings for it.)
> There is no convenient way to do this at this time, but proposals are welcome. It *is* possible currently, you can make a local module map package that encapsulates the C library, or if it is simple enough our C-target support may be sufficient
No proposal here, but this is more common than you'd think―it merits at least an FAQ in the final proposal.
More information about the swift-evolution