rawhide report: 20070912 changes

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 16:15:23 UTC 2007

Bill Crawford wrote:
> On 13/09/2007, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> 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.
> I think Nalin nailed the salient point: if the upstream doesn't ship a
> .pc, then packages building against it shouldn't be relying on there
> being one. I'll agree it's a PITA that upstream won't but that's a
> completely different issue. In the meantime, Ralf's right, whether
> anyone thinks he is being brusque or not.

But this was never a case where "upstream won't", it was that "upstream 
hasn't done it yet" and apparently wasn't informed by the packager who 
should know the most about the distro's needs that it was needed.

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list