| 1 |
again, even if there are corner cases which cannot be dealt with in a |
| 2 |
different way... |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
having an eclass function like the mentioned one is bad, cause it |
| 5 |
suggests that this is a way to fix things. It's not. Application |
| 6 |
developers running gentoo might think "oh great, there is a pkgconfig |
| 7 |
file for this, so I can use it in my Makefile". Then a Fedora packager |
| 8 |
comes across this package and realizes a compile failure until he |
| 9 |
notices the build system is calling for a pkgconfig file that cannot be |
| 10 |
found anywhere. So he contacts this developer and asks which distro he |
| 11 |
is using. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This already happened for me multiple times and the answers was "debian". |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
All this sounds like a very dirty workaround and if you need it, then do |
| 16 |
it, but _don't_ create an eclass, cause it's not a good thing to |
| 17 |
standardize. |
| 18 |
These files should _not_ be distro-dependant. Try to find other solutions. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-1 for this eclass |
Archives