On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > > > >> My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both > >> packagers and upstream do ? > >> > >> Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their > >> software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken. > > > > That is why it was fixed. > > > > Mon Dec 8 2008 Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:0.23-6 > > - Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more > > problems than it solves (#224148) > > You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :) > > I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the > feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config > autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would > be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As > it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config > incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from > keeping that patch, IMO. Maybe. Will you keep your part of the deal this time and write a brief 'how to use pkg-config for your project' manual ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
