On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:55 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > Bear in mind, however, that the difference between a full install (many > > GB's) and pkgconfig (< 100K) is monumental. > > True, I'm addressing mentality. > > We've got two differing opinions on this, would anybody else like to > chime in? Purity would place pkgconfig in a BuildRequire for the package that uses it rather than a Require in the -devel package providing the .pc. However, if I have -devel packages installed it's either because I'm building someone else's software from scratch or because I'm writing some software of my own. In the former case, it's likely that upstream is using pkgconfig, so having it automatically install keeps me from wondering why the configure script fails. In the latter case, unless I'm doing a quick one off I probably want to use pkgconfig to portably find information to compile and link with the library. So I think a Require: line in the package providing the .pc is better for the end-user than a BuildRequire: in the consuming package. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
