| 1 |
Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:57:29 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> I was wondering, is there a good reason we keep our own pkgconfig |
| 7 |
>>> files instead of communicating that to upstream and resolve that |
| 8 |
>>> properly? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Yes, when your "instead of ..." is not an option. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>>> What other distributions do? Or are we a special case and |
| 13 |
>>> we need our own pc files? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> No, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509392#c23 which reads: |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> "You do realize that out of five distros (Fedora, Debian, |
| 18 |
>> Slackware, SuSe, Mandriva) I checked five ship a .pc file?" by mabi. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. The controversy only exists |
| 21 |
> when upstream refuses to cooperate (which seems to be the case when |
| 22 |
> we're one of six distros patching it). If there are other situations |
| 23 |
> where we supply our own files please speak up. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in |
| 26 |
> a different way... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The fact is... missing pkg-config files are in 99% of the cases all |
| 30 |
fixable by fixing the build systems of packages that assume those |
| 31 |
pkg-config files... more specific: provide a fallback (I gave enough |
| 32 |
links for that in the reponse to the council agenda mail). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This improves portability overall, for upstream, for us, for other |
| 35 |
distros and for random users. |
Archives