On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Otherwise it could create a situation where software developed
on Fedora relies on .pc files and doesn't work on other distros, and the
other way around: software developed on other distros won't use the nice
pkg-config integration available on Fedora.
Obviously I can't speak for what other distributions are likely to do, but I'd expect there to be a not entirely trivial chance that other distributions that use pkg-config might use our .pc files if upstream doesn't provide them.
I don't think it's breaking compatibility in any real sense anyhow; in the absence of .pc files, porting some package that uses this library to or from another distribution is still going to require mucking with the Makefile to do the same thing. Having a .pc file doesn't make that any more difficult. But I accept that my opinion on this is apparently in the minority.
so please
don't be discouraged here, just go through the upstream process. :)
Um, no. I'm not about to waste time trying to convince anyone at Intel to add that to their library. They expect it to be statically linked with an application. If someone else feels like tilting at windmills and trying to convince Intel, more power to them. I'll just remove the .pc files from my package. The only reason I'm trying to package it as a shared library at all (contrary to upstream's expectations) is that there wouldn't really be any good reason for FPC to grant a bundling exception.
Eric
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
