Re: Should -dev packages providing .pc files depend on pkg-config?
* Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> [080407 10:16]:
> > It's not the dev package's responsibility to ensure gcc/g++/binutils
> > are installed, I beleive the same applies to pkg-config.
>
> It sounds like you're suggesting to add pkg-config to build-essential?
> Because that's the reason that the -dev package doesn't depend on them.
Here I have to contradict. No -dev package should ever depend on a
compiler or linker, even if that tool was not already in
build-essentials.
> The question is, can a -dev package be used for its main function
> (building programs with the library) without pkg-config? IMO that
> depends on the maintainer[1]. If the maintainer defines that pkg-config is
> the only supported[2] way to use the library, then it should be a Depends.
If the maintainer decides this, it should be a Recommends, because it
would be found in all but unusual installations. If the Maintainer does
not think there is no sensible way in his eyes without some tool, it should
be at most a Suggests, if it is there at all.
> If the .pc file is shipped as a service to the user, but building
> without it is supported as well, then it should not be a Depends, but
> possibly a Suggests or Recommends, depending on the exact situation.
I think a Recommends would be far too strong here. A Recommends means
(has ment before apt and means with newer apt), that an user who does
not want it has to work actively against it getting installed.
A Recommends is by no way a lightweight "hey, you might like this, too".
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: