<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Kevin Kofler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at" target="_blank">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">Eric Smith wrote:<br>
> I don't really understand how this is "adding to the API" or results in<br>
> incompatibilities. Do other people think that doing this is a mistake?<br>
> Would it actually be better for the package not to provide pkg-config<br>
> files?<br>
<br>
</div>The reason we do not recommend adding non-upstream pkg-config files is that<br>
software developed on Fedora then starts relying on those .pc files being<br>
present and does not work on any other distribution. Those added .pc files<br>
are useless for portable software.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see that it's any more useless than having to hack up Makefiles in some other way to do the equivalent, but if that's the policy, I'll remove them.<br>
<br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Eric<br> <br></div></div></div></div>