Adding pkg-config not provided by upstream when packaging a library?
Hans de Goede
hdegoede at redhat.com
Mon Jun 16 08:22:08 UTC 2014
On 06/16/2014 08:57 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> 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. :)
+1, + a 1000 even. .pc files are good, but please send them upstream.
More information about the devel