On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:55:30 -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? I'm all for increasing the number of -devel packages which "Requires: pkgconfig". If the .pc file suggests that the -devel package cannot be used conveniently without querying pkg-config, "Requires: pkgconfig" ought to be added. This is very likely the case when headers are installed in non-standard locations (e.g. paths or libs including version information!) or if the .pc file adds flags and dependencies. Without running pkg-config, some configure scripts fail to find installed headers and libraries and fall back to using an included copy of a library or switching off a feature. Apart from that, any package which stores a .pc file in $PKG_CONFIG_PATH should not create unowned directories and hence should "Requires: pkgconfig" anyway. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
