| 26 Jun 2025 |
 emily | it requires little domain knowledge | 20:51:04 |
 Alyssa Ross | well we have plenty people with the time and motivation to keep asking us why we're not using pkgconf and who want to go full steam ahead on changing to it | 20:51:29 |
| Alyssa Ross | but that motivation never seems to extend far enough to submitting a very small PR to bring it to feature parity | 20:51:54 |
| emily | (for my part the reason is just "context switching to even a trivial task is easy for any given individual task but if I don't deliberately apply inertia to ones that don't seem like a fantastic idea to do immediately then bad things result") | 20:52:37 |
| emily | (this does not apply to giving pointers on what needs doing but that does require someone willing to put follow-up at the top of their own stack :p ) | 20:53:07 |
| emily | it is annoying having to keep pkg-config going | 20:53:44 |
| emily | I'm guessing the hook will probably give us unexpected fun when we do switch just on an unknown unknowns basis | 20:54:11 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | we could already run one staging with the hook and then do the actual switch after | 20:55:21 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | but that might be a dumb idea | 20:55:32 |
| emily | that won't help unless we revert our hack patch | 20:55:41 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | ah right | 20:55:48 |
| emily | which will result in equivalent amounts of fun | 20:55:48 |
| emily | I expect it will be fine though | 20:56:08 |
| emily | just means it may not be a zero effort cycle | 20:56:23 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | so whats the plan, bully some poor unsuspecting yet pushy contributor (e.g. me) into writing that "simple" patch, and go ahead with all at once? | 20:56:44 |
| Alyssa Ross | SGTM | 20:57:02 |
| emily | that seems ideal yes :P | 20:57:04 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | dangit | 20:57:11 |
| emily | sending the patch upstream will sanity check anyway | 20:57:15 |
| emily | ideally we wait for them to apply it and then switch | 20:57:24 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | we also do have cmake 4, pkgconf+cmake sounds like a very fun cycle | 20:57:43 |
| Alyssa Ross | We could do CMake first given pkgconf will take time | 20:58:13 |
| emily | CMake and obliterating the bad CMake hook are immediately doable I think | 21:00:05 |
| emily | there's like one blocking issue with the CMake build itself and then it's just jobset tedium | 21:00:29 |
| emily | GCC 15 also probably doable | 21:01:01 |
| emily | LLVM 20 I know Randy is working on as part of his big branch | 21:01:20 |
| emily | btw pkgconf also breaks Meson tests on Darwin and I have no idea why | 21:02:33 |
| emily | we can probably just disable them but it scares me a little | 21:02:43 |
 Tristan Ross | Isn't that just an extension of my PR for bump to LLVM 20 but on the Darwin side of things? | 21:04:13 |
| emily | I think he did it independently beforehand? but I mostly mean I believe he has been fixing breakage along the way since he builds a lot of stuff | 21:05:03 |
