pkgconfig-0.25-r2 version bump

BUG=none
TEST=rm -fr chroot, make_chroot, build_package --fast --nousepkg

pkgconfig-0.25-r2 version bump

pkgconfig-0.25 fixed a bug with PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR, which helps proper SYSROOT support

Change-Id: I8b6f64f25095c91f7f824af8642154a48d0e3de1

[trchen, 2010-08-18 10:18:23]

this patch upgrade pkgconfig to 0.25, which fixed a bug with
PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR to allow proper SYSROOT support.

currently our portage includes a patch that mangles paths in *.pc files. it is
dirty because it causes the installed *.pc files to rely on the path where root
directory on the build machine.

this patch doesn't change the behavior yet.
a number of patches to (safely) migrate packages to use PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT will
follow soon.

[Mandeep Singh Baines, 2010-08-18 14:34:23]

On 2010/08/18 10:18:23, trchen wrote:
> this patch upgrade pkgconfig to 0.25, which fixed a bug with
> PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR to allow proper SYSROOT support.
> 
> currently our portage includes a patch that mangles paths in *.pc files. it is
> dirty because it causes the installed *.pc files to rely on the path where
root
> directory on the build machine.
> 
> this patch doesn't change the behavior yet.
> a number of patches to (safely) migrate packages to use PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT
will
> follow soon.

Please add a TEST= and BUG= line.

How did you test this. Did you do a fresh build with --nousepkg?

[trchen, 2010-08-19 04:07:15]

On 2010/08/18 14:34:23, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> On 2010/08/18 10:18:23, trchen wrote:
> > this patch upgrade pkgconfig to 0.25, which fixed a bug with
> > PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR to allow proper SYSROOT support.
> > 
> > currently our portage includes a patch that mangles paths in *.pc files. it
is
> > dirty because it causes the installed *.pc files to rely on the path where
> root
> > directory on the build machine.
> > 
> > this patch doesn't change the behavior yet.
> > a number of patches to (safely) migrate packages to use PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT
> will
> > follow soon.
> 
> Please add a TEST= and BUG= line.
> 
> How did you test this. Did you do a fresh build with --nousepkg?

a fresh build finished just now, it works fine.

however I noticed something weird, not sure if it's related to this patch
though.
the first build of sys-fs/ecryptfs-utils failed for not finding libnss3.so.12,
but it succeed when parallel_emerge tried to build it again.
I believe it is due to some missing dependencies discovered by parallel build,
but I have no evidence yet. Will investigate this later.

[anush, 2010-08-19 06:53:23]

Does it work without parallel emerge ?

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, <trchen@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2010/08/18 14:34:23, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
>> On 2010/08/18 10:18:23, trchen wrote:
>> > this patch upgrade pkgconfig to 0.25, which fixed a bug with
>> > PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT_DIR to allow proper SYSROOT support.
>> >
>> > currently our portage includes a patch that mangles paths in *.pc files.
>> it
>>
> is
>
>> > dirty because it causes the installed *.pc files to rely on the path
>> where
>> root
>> > directory on the build machine.
>> >
>> > this patch doesn't change the behavior yet.
>> > a number of patches to (safely) migrate packages to use
>> PKG_CONFIG_SYSROOT
>> will
>> > follow soon.
>>
>
>  Please add a TEST= and BUG= line.
>>
>
>  How did you test this. Did you do a fresh build with --nousepkg?
>>
>
> a fresh build finished just now, it works fine.
>
> however I noticed something weird, not sure if it's related to this patch
> though.
> the first build of sys-fs/ecryptfs-utils failed for not finding
> libnss3.so.12,
> but it succeed when parallel_emerge tried to build it again.
> I believe it is due to some missing dependencies discovered by parallel
> build,
> but I have no evidence yet. Will investigate this later.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/3130028/show
>

[trchen, 2010-08-19 09:12:29]

On 2010/08/19 06:53:23, anush wrote:
> Does it work without parallel emerge ?

Yes, it finished without any glitch.

[Mandeep Singh Baines, 2010-08-19 18:05:32]

LGTM