Adding pkg-config not provided by upstream when packaging a library?

[Eric Smith]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at>
wrote:

> 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
them.

Thanks,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140615/a6e85508/attachment.html>