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