On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:10:34PM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes: > > > At one point in time, all > > > the options had to be supplied to the "configure" script. > > This still applies, this is what "packaging is about". > > You're forgetting that not everyone who compiles software is a packager. Having > to set CFLAGS and LIBS by hand might be acceptable to you as a packager, but > most upstream projects will not consider this an acceptable solution, because > they also have to support compilation from a tarball and want to make that as > simple as possible. > > Now, of course, adding the .pc file in Fedora only won't help users on other > distributions, but that's why you as a maintainer are expected to talk to > upstream about such issues instead of sticking your head in the sand. Forgive me for wading in here, but upstream *has* to be where .pc files show up, and if they don't show up there, we absolutely shouldn't be adding them to binary packages. I believe this very strongly. Including a .pc file in a -devel package suggests, to maintainers of projects which use that -devel package, that the .pc file can be depended upon to always be there when the library is, that it's safe to have configure scripts depend on their presence. If I were a maintainer of a package which depended on a .pc file, and I started getting reports from people who couldn't install my package because they built a depended-upon package from source (because they're on another operating system or Linux flavor), and I then tracked the root cause down to my dependence on a .pc file which isn't available everywhere, I'd feel betrayed. Cheers, Nalin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
