On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 16:44 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin <at> redhat.com> writes: > > 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. > > But there are actually cases where .pc files are being added in Fedora > packages, for reasons such as the upstream foo-config script not being > multilib-safe (so it gets replaced with multilibbed .pc files and a wrapper > foo-config script which just calls pkgconfig). There are also other reasons for > adding .pc files in the distribution. > > That said, I do think this point needs to be taken upstream. That's the point that Nalin is trying to make, :). Two things unanimously agreed on: 1) *.pc files are important because these contain the options that the providing package would know and the dependent package developer shouldn't guess. 2) A mechanism for providing this (whether it's a *.pc file or something else) should be provided by the package developer and that means upstream. They should answer the question "How do I develop against your packages?" Now, there are more immediate concerns like "What to do in the meantime because certain packages are waiting?" That's where Ralf and Chris should cooperate and Ralf begrudgingly (and quite sarcastically, I might add ... It's a good thing I can see the humor in it sometimes ;) ) has declared he will provide .. ahm ... OpenThreads-devel-dontuse and OpenSceneGraph-devel-dontuse for people to, err, use. That might sound silly, but that's the package maintainers last word, ;). Just be glad it's not worse, :-p. Don't forget the BuildRequires in your spec file. -- Richi Plana -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
