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

[Ben de Groot]

On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer.
>>
>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways,
>> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s).
>>
>>> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which
>>> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it).  If
>>> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak
>>> up.
>>
>> Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about,
>> see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary.
>> Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details...
>>
>>> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in
>>> a different way...
>>
>> It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ...
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo
>>
>
> Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem
> to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the
> package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc
> files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if
> there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a
> special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all

Exactly. I don't understand why this is an issue at all. Obviously,
if upstream does not ship a .pc file or ships a broken one, we try
to work with upstream to get it fixed on their end. If they are
uncooperative, we fix it on our end.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer