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

[drago01]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.

Yeah please send them upstream. There is *no* reason not to do so.