Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Banning modification of pkg-config files

[Peter Stuge]

Tom Wijsman wrote:
> besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream;

I think there is agreement that this is the ideal, and that the
discussion is about what to do when that seems out of reach.


> > My key point is that it isn't Gentoo's responsibility or duty to fix
> > problems introduced by upstreams, even if Gentoo developers are so
> > skilled that they would be able to.
> >
> > I think your time is better spent on things that are not broken.
>
> If we all did that, I wonder how much would still work; not as much as
> we have achieved now, so I like that we've made an "added value".

Don't get me wrong - I'm wholeheartedly in favor of contributing
fixes upstream, but not of building a support workload when upstream
is uncooperative.


> > Maybe introduce a USE flag for installing .pc:s in ${FILESDIR} ?
>
> We have recently decided to not use an USE flag for small files; so,
> I'm not sure if this proposal is much different from that decision.

Oh ok. Sure.


> You can use INSTALL_MASK for this purpose I think.

Mh but that'll also kill .pc files from upstream. The option I'd like
is to mask only the ones added by Gentoo. I would be fine with them
having gentoo- names. That makes it very clear that this interface is
a Gentoo-specific thing. However, that throws off the autoconf
pkg-config macros. :\


> > > (Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config
> > > files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.)
> >
> > I don't think I said to ban them. I said that I want Gentoo to stay
> > close to upstream by default. I also said that maintainers shouldn't
> > be expected to untie upstream bugknots.
> >
> > Please do not call me retarded again.
>
> That might have been meant to be about the thread as a whole.

All right, fair enough there too.


Thanks

//Peter