From: Theo Buehler <tb@theobuehler.org>
Subject: Re: pkg-config files for curses?
To: tech <tech@openbsd.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:48:57 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:48:31PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I ran into some problems with curses when trying to build Python 3.13.x.
> Their build system really would like to have pkg-config files. We have a
> workaround for 3.12.x but it doesn't work as-is for 3.13 and their build
> system is byzantine.

No kidding.

> I have an alternative workaround which I think would be acceptable for
> ports (include local copies of pc files in the port and point pkg-config
> at them during configure/build) but I was wondering what anyone's
> thoughts are about including them in base. It would simplify things
> in ports, and we are providing pc files for a number of other libraries
> so there's some prior art.
> 
> Python just wants pc files for ncurses and panel but if we do install,
> I think it would be safer to use the same set as curses upstream:
> ncurses, panel, menu, form.

Makes sense. I didn't like the .pc hack I saw in your python 3.13 diff
on misc.

> The diff below uses a modified version of our usual generate_pkgconfig.sh
> script. I'm using a "don't really do anything" value for Cflags like we
> do for libssl etc (this is different from upstream who set -D_BSD_SOURCE
> -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 in theirs; that seems a step too far and broke at
> least one port in earlier tests). It's currently running through a ports
> bulk build.

I haven't tested it, but the diff reads fine and if it survives a bulk
it's

ok tb