Bill Crawford wrote:
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.
But this was never a case where "upstream won't", it was that "upstream
hasn't done it yet" and apparently wasn't informed by the packager who
should know the most about the distro's needs that it was needed.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
