On 13/09/2007, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> 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. I think Nalin nailed the salient point: if the upstream doesn't ship a .pc, then packages building against it shouldn't be relying on there being one. I'll agree it's a PITA that upstream won't but that's a completely different issue. In the meantime, Ralf's right, whether anyone thinks he is being brusque or not. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
