| 1 |
On 10/05/14 12:39, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 |
| 7 |
>>>>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. |
| 10 |
>>>>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, |
| 11 |
>>>>> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which |
| 14 |
>>>>>> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it). If |
| 15 |
>>>>>> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak |
| 16 |
>>>>>> up. |
| 17 |
>>>>> Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about, |
| 18 |
>>>>> see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary. |
| 19 |
>>>>> Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details... |
| 20 |
>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>>> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in |
| 22 |
>>>>>> a different way... |
| 23 |
>>>>> It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ... |
| 24 |
>>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo |
| 26 |
>>>>> |
| 27 |
>>>> Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem |
| 28 |
>>>> to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the |
| 29 |
>>>> package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc |
| 30 |
>>>> files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if |
| 31 |
>>>> there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a |
| 32 |
>>>> special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all |
| 33 |
>>> Exactly. I don't understand why this is an issue at all. Obviously, |
| 34 |
>>> if upstream does not ship a .pc file or ships a broken one, we try |
| 35 |
>>> to work with upstream to get it fixed on their end. If they are |
| 36 |
>>> uncooperative, we fix it on our end. |
| 37 |
>> Adding a pkgconfig file is a bit of a special case. Some distros have a |
| 38 |
>> habit of renaming and creating .pc files for various libraries. |
| 39 |
> Isn't this the same thing? If Debian creates/renames upstream pc files, |
| 40 |
> and you use Debian as a development box, you have the same problem: |
| 41 |
> Develop software which is not portable across distros. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Say, a package XYZ makes use of xyz.pc and it's distribution specific, |
| 44 |
then you switch to a distribution that also ships XYZ but without |
| 45 |
pkg-config file, |
| 46 |
you can simply... |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
export FOOBAR_LIBS="-lfoo" |
| 49 |
export FOOBAR_CFLAGS="-I/usr/include/foo" |
| 50 |
./configure |
| 51 |
make |
| 52 |
make install |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
...as pkg-config allows using it without the .pc files by design. This |
| 55 |
is an non-issue. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
- Samuli |
Archives