pkg-config-0.21-requires-private-fix.patch breaks Requires.private Cflags

[Chitlesh GOORAH]

Hello there,

the pkg-config-0.21-requires-private-fix.patch breaks Requires.private
Cflags. There is already a bug opened with respect to this issue since
a year now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426106
http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/202148-heads-up-enabling-gen...

I was recently ping'ed by an upstream complaining about why this patch
is still being shipped.
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jan-2009/msg00591.html

My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
packagers and upstream do ?

Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.

Kind regards,
Chitlesh

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> packagers and upstream do ?
>
> Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.

That is why it was fixed.

Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen   - 1:0.23-6
- Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
  problems than it solves (#224148)

[Dan Nicholson]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> > My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> > packagers and upstream do ?
> >
> > Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> > software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.
>
> That is why it was fixed.
>
> Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen   - 1:0.23-6
> Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
>
> problems than it solves (#224148)

You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :)

I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the
feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config
autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would
be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As
it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config
incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from
keeping that patch, IMO.

--
Dan

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> > > My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> > > packagers and upstream do ?
> > >
> > > Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> > > software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.
> >
> > That is why it was fixed.
> >
> > Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen   - 1:0.23-6
> > Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
> >
> > problems than it solves (#224148)
>
> You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :)
>
> I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the
> feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config
> autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would
> be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As
> it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config
> incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from
> keeping that patch, IMO.

Maybe.

Will you keep your part of the deal this time and write a brief 'how to
use pkg-config for your project' manual ?

[Dan Nicholson]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> > > > My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> > > > packagers and upstream do ?
> > > >
> > > > Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> > > > software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.
> > >
> > > That is why it was fixed.
> > >
> > > Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen   - 1:0.23-6
> > > Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
> > >
> > > problems than it solves (#224148)
> >
> > You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :)
> >
> > I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the
> > feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config
> > autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would
> > be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As
> > it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config
> > incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from
> > keeping that patch, IMO.
>
> Maybe.
>
> Will you keep your part of the deal this time and write a brief 'how to
> use pkg-config for your project' manual ?

groff or html?

--
Dan

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:22 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen  wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> > > > > My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> > > > > packagers and upstream do ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> > > > > software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.
> > > >
> > > > That is why it was fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen   - 1:0.23-6
> > > > Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
> > > >
> > > > problems than it solves (#224148)
> > >
> > > You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :)
> > >
> > > I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the
> > > feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config
> > > autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would
> > > be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As
> > > it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config
> > > incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from
> > > keeping that patch, IMO.
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > Will you keep your part of the deal this time and write a brief 'how to
> > use pkg-config for your project' manual ?
>
> groff or html?

Whatever works for you. I think it would be nice to have this
information on the pkg-config wiki and in the installed pkg-config docs.
Not sure what that implies for the best format...