Adding pkg-config not provided by upstream when packaging a library?
spacewar at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 05:55:46 UTC 2014
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at>
> Eric Smith wrote:
> > I don't really understand how this is "adding to the API" or results in
> > incompatibilities. Do other people think that doing this is a mistake?
> > Would it actually be better for the package not to provide pkg-config
> > files?
> The reason we do not recommend adding non-upstream pkg-config files is that
> software developed on Fedora then starts relying on those .pc files being
> present and does not work on any other distribution. Those added .pc files
> are useless for portable software.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel