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

[Eric Smith]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.


Obviously I can't speak for what other distributions are likely to do, but
I'd expect there to be a not entirely trivial chance that other
distributions that use pkg-config might use our .pc files if upstream
doesn't provide them.

I don't think it's breaking compatibility in any real sense anyhow; in the
absence of .pc files, porting some package that uses this library to or
from another distribution is still going to require mucking with the
Makefile to do the same thing.  Having a .pc file doesn't make that any
more difficult.  But I accept that my opinion on this is apparently in the
minority.


> so please
> don't be discouraged here, just go through the upstream process. :)
>

Um, no.  I'm not about to waste time trying to convince anyone at Intel to
add that to their library. They expect it to be statically linked with an
application.  If someone else feels like tilting at windmills and trying to
convince Intel, more power to them.  I'll just remove the .pc files from my
package.  The only reason I'm trying to package it as a shared library at
all (contrary to upstream's expectations) is that there wouldn't really be
any good reason for FPC to grant a bundling exception.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140616/504b916d/attachment-0001.html>