On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 11:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. Facts are: * Upstream shipped *.pc's with OSG-1 * Upstream does not ship *.pc's with their OSG-2 tarballs * Upstream has not yet added *.pc's to their (bleeding edge) SVN. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
