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

[Kalev Lember]

On 06/15/2014 11:32 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Since there are sixteen variants of the library, I am providing sixteen
> corresponding pkg-config files.  When another program uses the library,
> by using pkg-config in their Makefile (or other build system), it will
> ensure that they are getting the right C preprocessor defines for the
> chosen library variant.
> 
> 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?

I personally think it's very desirable to add pkg-config files since it
makes libraries much easier to use.

However, submit them UPSTREAM, don't do them as downstream patches. I
would only add them to the Fedora packaging once they've been accepted
upstream. Otherwise it could create a situation where software developed
on Fedora relies on .pc files and doesn't work on other distros, and the
other way around: software developed on other distros won't use the nice
pkg-config integration available on Fedora.

And yes, I agree this is a new API. But a very useful new API, so please
don't be discouraged here, just go through the upstream process. :)

Hope this helps,
Kalev