[bug#66424] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: libxkbcommon: Fix cross-compile.

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi John,

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> (CC'ing authors of two related commits too)
>
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:07 PM, Zheng Junjie wrote:
>
>> * gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm (libxkbcommon): Fix cross-compile.
>> [native-inputs]: When cross-compile add PKG-CONFIG-FOR-BUILD.
>> ---
>>  gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm | 10 +++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm b/gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm
>> index db948a9318..84bdcad031 100644
>> --- a/gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/xdisorg.scm
>> @@ -527,9 +527,13 @@ (define-public libxkbcommon
>>             wayland-protocols
>>             xkeyboard-config))
>>      (native-inputs
>> -     (list bison doxygen pkg-config python
>> -           ;; wayland-scanner is required at build time.
>> -           wayland))
>> +     (append
>> +      (if (%current-target-system)
>> +          (list pkg-config-for-build)
>> +          '())
>> +      (list bison doxygen pkg-config python
>> +            ;; wayland-scanner is required at build time.
>> +            wayland)))
>>      (arguments
>>       (list #:configure-flags
>>             #~(list (string-append "-Dxkb-config-root="
>>
>> base-commit: 9b77bd0b9b4f3de69390da0ba7db5b9dbc01e554
>
> When searching the log it looked like this had already been done on
> core-updates in 5841ac3981a3a08968704728cef14accd14e7a1c (Marius) but I
> was confused when I didn't see it. Looks like the pkg-config-for-build
> was dropped (accidentally?) in 5841ac3981a3a08968704728cef14accd14e7a1c
> (Maxim)
>
> Is this still needed?

On the top of my head, I thought pkg-config-for-build had been obsolete
by the pkg-config symbol being dynamically bound to something that makes
sense for the context it's used in, via some macro trickery.  I may have
misunderstood things.

> And if so, I can do it on mesa-updates very soon, since libx11 and
> libxpm will be ungrafted and related packages (like mesa) updated too.
> Or we can leave it to core-updates if that makes more sense.

I guess it depends which branch is expected to be the shortest lived
one; I'm giving about a month to let more time for core-updates to merge
interesting bits and build the branch and fix breakage. Take this with a
grain of salt; it's not fixed in stone.

Thanks,

Maxim