| 1 |
Samuli Suominen: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop |
| 6 |
>>>> software for "Linux". |
| 7 |
>>> I'm with you here, but what is the solution? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files |
| 10 |
>>> at all (in these cases). |
| 11 |
>> I think this is a sane default. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build issues |
| 14 |
> we are seeing |
| 15 |
> today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for static linking, there has been |
| 16 |
> multiple bugs lately, |
| 17 |
> and we are in middle of process of obsoleting every custom foo-config |
| 18 |
> due to same |
| 19 |
> reasons, so having pkg-config files is an absolute requirement. |
| 20 |
> Some binary-only distros might get away without them, but we won't. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I said repeatedly... if it is the ONLY way to fix something, then we |
| 24 |
have good reason to bend the rule. (and even then it should be made |
| 25 |
hard, as in: open this for discussion first. In addition, all of these |
| 26 |
non-upstream files have to be documented as such.) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
However, currently, this is not a rule, just some policy people would |
| 29 |
rather ignore since it might cause you a bit more work. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I feel it is time to make some more strict rules after seeing people |
| 32 |
importing plain debian hacks, including renaming of libraries, renaming |
| 33 |
of pkgconfig files and probably worse to come. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> (Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config |
| 37 |
> files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.) |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
No, you are twisting words here. |
Archives