rawhide report: 20070912 changes

Richi Plana myfedora at richip.dhs.org
Thu Sep 13 16:53:43 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 16:44 +0000, Kevin Kofler 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.
> That said, I do think this point needs to be taken upstream.

That's the point that Nalin is trying to make, :).

Two things unanimously agreed on:

1) *.pc files are important because these contain the options that the
providing package would know and the dependent package developer
shouldn't guess.
2) A mechanism for providing this (whether it's a *.pc file or something
else) should be provided by the package developer and that means
upstream. They should answer the question "How do I develop against your

Now, there are more immediate concerns like "What to do in the meantime
because certain packages are waiting?" That's where Ralf and Chris
should cooperate and Ralf begrudgingly (and quite sarcastically, I might
add ... It's a good thing I can see the humor in it sometimes ;) ) has
declared he will provide .. ahm ... OpenThreads-devel-dontuse and
OpenSceneGraph-devel-dontuse for people to, err, use. That might sound
silly, but that's the package maintainers last word, ;). Just be glad
it's not worse, :-p.

Don't forget the BuildRequires in your spec file.

Richi Plana

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list