On 8/17/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 17 August 2006 00:34, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> It seems Matthias Clasen (mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx) wants to debate this and
> I'm not sure what to do. I don't have any arguments other than
> directory ownership and "that's what the committee decided".
My comments (put in bugzilla and discussed on IRC last night)
Until such time as the filesystem package owns the %{_libdir}/pkgconfig
directory, this guideline will stand. If filesystem owns the directory and we
remove the fact that many packages could end up owning it, we can revisit this
issue and possible remove the necessity on pkgconfig for any file that drops a
.pc file. However the former needs to happen before we discuss the latter.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
It doesn't make any sense to have /usr/lib[64]/pkgconfig owned by filesystem.
And even, for the sake of argument, that it did.
You will still be requireing that every package that include a devel
package with a .pc also Require pkgconfig in order to parse that .pc
file. So by changing the directory ownership from one package to
another (which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever) still gains you
absolutely nothing, or actually gains you more problems than what we
originally had.
QED. End of stupid discussion.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
