rawhide report: 20070912 changes

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Sep 13 09:08:01 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 08:56 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> > > However Ralf is being extremely difficult and refuses to add a
> > > pkgconfig file to OpenSceneGraph-devel package which I have already
> > > provided for him.
> > If you had a look into the OpenSceneGraph package's sources (which you
> > apparently didn't) you'd know that Fedora's OSG packages carries around
> > a different implementation of pkgconfig files commented out. If I'd
> > activate this, it would not help you much.
> > 
> > You are wanting me to adopt Debian's proprietary and isolated solution.
> The "proprietary and isolated solution" would be implementing the pkgconfig 
> files differently from (and incompatibly with) Debian like you're suggesting.
Right, we would be inventing our own proprietary and isolated solution.

ATM, I prefer not doing so.

> As I said at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247376#c27 :
> | Ralf, if another package requires that pkgconfig file, I don't see what's
> | wrong  with adding it, especially given that the file has been provided
> | already! There are other packages with Fedora-added .pc files too. Please try
> | thinking in the overall interest of Fedora instead of defending principles
> | all the time.
> |
> | Additionally, compatibility with Debian is also an important reason to add
> | the .pc file. Even if you don't like what Debian is doing, being gratuitously 
> | incompatible with them helps no one.
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> > > His reason is that upstream did not provide one, so therefore it is
> > > wrong for him to do so. 
> > Wrong, I do not add them, because upstream decided to abandon them.
> I don't think that's enough of a reason if packages still require it
These package require them, because their configure scripts are bugged.

>  and at 
> least one other distribution still provides it. In fact, _you_ as the Fedora 
> maintainer should be asking upstream to reinclude it, and in the meantime 
> provide it yourself (that's what Source1 is for).
I, the Fedora maintainer, have decided to respect upstream's decisions.
People can't expect a package to stay backward compatible for ever. 

Esp. not when it comes to complex packages such a OSG. This thing is a
fat monster with many questionable and discuss-worthy design decisions
lurking inside.

> > > he also has not provided an OSG-1 compat package to help with these
> > > dependency problems. 
> > I had offered to implement them, but you did not answer. Now, we am
> > going the upstream path.
> He probably missed that thread, this is unfortunate, but that isn't really 
> related to the issue at hand.
Well, now the train has left the station, ... we are heading the "rough
ride" upstream wants us to go.

> > > What am I suppposed to do in this situation? 
> > Fix your packages, such they work without pkgconfig.
> In fact, that's essentially what he has done now, but the "fix" is an ugly 
> workaround which would be easy to avoid by just shipping that .pc file.
Where did he do so? I had asked him for his sources, but ... I am still
waiting for an answer.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list