On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ? groff or html? -- Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
