Samuli Suominen: > > On 12/05/14 20:47, Peter Stuge wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> Longterm, this makes it year after year more difficult to develop >>>> software for "Linux". >>> I'm with you here, but what is the solution? >>> >>> If we say we stick to upstream then we don't provide pkg-config files >>> at all (in these cases). >> I think this is a sane default. > > Except having pkg-config is the only way to fix some of the build issues > we are seeing > today, like getting 'Libs.private: ' for static linking, there has been > multiple bugs lately, > and we are in middle of process of obsoleting every custom foo-config > due to same > reasons, so having pkg-config files is an absolute requirement. > Some binary-only distros might get away without them, but we won't. >
I said repeatedly... if it is the ONLY way to fix something, then we have good reason to bend the rule. (and even then it should be made hard, as in: open this for discussion first. In addition, all of these non-upstream files have to be documented as such.) However, currently, this is not a rule, just some policy people would rather ignore since it might cause you a bit more work. I feel it is time to make some more strict rules after seeing people importing plain debian hacks, including renaming of libraries, renaming of pkgconfig files and probably worse to come. > > (Are we seriously discussing banning something useful as pkg-config > files?! That's retarded. Must be some joke.) > No, you are twisting words here.
