Le dimanche 05 juillet 2009 à 01:15 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit : > I wonder whether it's a good idea to mix handling of *.la and *.pc; > perhaps you should split that in two helpers or allow disabling either > support via command-line flags so that package maintainers can opt to > use this or that feature on this or that package.
I wondered that at the time of writing, but it’s not exceptional for a debhelper to do several things that are only loosely related. Since the script supports -X, you can easily ignore either of libtool stuff or pkg-config stuff using it. > I read quickly through the script and wondered aboud a couple of > things. > > * I wondered whether parsing of Build-Depends could be done in a > common Debhelper control file parsing function, or even in dpkg-dev Certainly, if it can be useful for something else. I’m not sure what the debhelper policy is in this case. > * the behavior to use either Build-Depends (Debian specified) or .pc > versions (upstream specified) is not controllable; I wonder whether > only one behavior should be implemented. It relies on the fact that versioned dependencies, when specified in the .pc file, are correct. If they are not, why leave them at all? The .pc should be fixed in this case. > My personal wish would be to use a similar system for .pc than shlibs: > packages shipping .pc files would provide a minimum version to depend > on and that's what we would use. Perhaps taking the highest of this > version and the bdep could be offered as a flag? I’m afraid we would lose some of the flexibility that build-depends currently allow. We would end up always depending on the latest version. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
