On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 08:56 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes: > > > However Ralf is being extremely difficult and refuses to add a > > > pkgconfig file to OpenSceneGraph-devel package which I have already > > > provided for him. > > If you had a look into the OpenSceneGraph package's sources (which you > > apparently didn't) you'd know that Fedora's OSG packages carries around > > a different implementation of pkgconfig files commented out. If I'd > > activate this, it would not help you much. > > > > You are wanting me to adopt Debian's proprietary and isolated solution. > > The "proprietary and isolated solution" would be implementing the pkgconfig > files differently from (and incompatibly with) Debian like you're suggesting. Right, we would be inventing our own proprietary and isolated solution. ATM, I prefer not doing so. > As I said at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247376#c27 : > | Ralf, if another package requires that pkgconfig file, I don't see what's > | wrong with adding it, especially given that the file has been provided > | already! There are other packages with Fedora-added .pc files too. Please try > | thinking in the overall interest of Fedora instead of defending principles > | all the time. > | > | Additionally, compatibility with Debian is also an important reason to add > | the .pc file. Even if you don't like what Debian is doing, being gratuitously > | incompatible with them helps no one. > > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes: > > > His reason is that upstream did not provide one, so therefore it is > > > wrong for him to do so. > > Wrong, I do not add them, because upstream decided to abandon them. > > I don't think that's enough of a reason if packages still require it These package require them, because their configure scripts are bugged. > and at > least one other distribution still provides it. In fact, _you_ as the Fedora > maintainer should be asking upstream to reinclude it, and in the meantime > provide it yourself (that's what Source1 is for). I, the Fedora maintainer, have decided to respect upstream's decisions. People can't expect a package to stay backward compatible for ever. Esp. not when it comes to complex packages such a OSG. This thing is a fat monster with many questionable and discuss-worthy design decisions lurking inside. > > > he also has not provided an OSG-1 compat package to help with these > > > dependency problems. > > I had offered to implement them, but you did not answer. Now, we am > > going the upstream path. > > He probably missed that thread, this is unfortunate, but that isn't really > related to the issue at hand. Well, now the train has left the station, ... we are heading the "rough ride" upstream wants us to go. > > > What am I suppposed to do in this situation? > > Fix your packages, such they work without pkgconfig. > > In fact, that's essentially what he has done now, but the "fix" is an ugly > workaround which would be easy to avoid by just shipping that .pc file. Where did he do so? I had asked him for his sources, but ... I am still waiting for an answer. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
