rawhide report: 20070912 changes
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Sep 14 17:00:59 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 11:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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.
* Upstream shipped *.pc's with OSG-1
* Upstream does not ship *.pc's with their OSG-2 tarballs
* Upstream has not yet added *.pc's to their (bleeding edge) SVN.
More information about the fedora-devel-list