On Mon, 12 May 2014 21:25:55 +0200 Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote: > > besides a temporary fix downstream it should go upstream; > > I think there is agreement that this is the ideal, and that the > discussion is about what to do when that seems out of reach. Yes, I think that's the case too; I think I wrote it for completeness. > > If we all did that, I wonder how much would still work; not as much > > as we have achieved now, so I like that we've made an "added value". > > Don't get me wrong - I'm wholeheartedly in favor of contributing > fixes upstream, but not of building a support workload when upstream > is uncooperative. The "bug"load is there regardless of whether you want to support or it or not when upstream is uncooperative; so, I think that the status quo is currently that people whom can and want to fix it can do so. But I don't think that forcing them to do or not do it is something that the whole distribution can be convinced to do, at least from what I read; I'm also not sure if you meant to suggest such force or not, ... > > You can use INSTALL_MASK for this purpose I think. > > Mh but that'll also kill .pc files from upstream. The option I'd like > is to mask only the ones added by Gentoo. I would be fine with them > having gentoo- names. That makes it very clear that this interface is > a Gentoo-specific thing. However, that throws off the autoconf > pkg-config macros. :\ Yeah, it's tricky; this makes me think, can't we perhaps install them in a separate directory that pkg-config could check? That way, we don't need to change the name anymore; and they would still be separate, allowing you to separately mask them. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
