[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Box2D: providing .pc files even if upstream does not?



Yeah well, it's their task to check stuff in other distributions too. We also do patch things, fix stuff, change directories and so on, because the goal is to provide a decently integrated operating system. Of course, I agree that it is much better if upstream fixes it on their side, but if they don't, I still think it is on our side to provide the best software we can, and not just to restrict ourselves to deliver upstream code as it is.

I know developers who won't add a patch to a package until upstream has commited it to their code, and some others prefer to still do things even if upstream won't accept them. I have never really seen an overall consensus about this in the project, apart from cooperating with upstream when possible, so in the end each maintainer or each subproject in Debian does it differently.

I, for one, prefer to deliver the best possible code I can.

Of course, some intermediate point such as addind that deb- or debian- prefix to the .pc files in the packages maintained by the Games Team might do, if there is no other way.

In any case, I think my point is already clear, so I won't keep explaining it all and all over again anymore :)

Greetings,
Miry



2014-03-03 10:44 GMT+01:00 Tobias Hansen <tobias.hansen@physik.uni-hamburg.de>:
Person develops on Ubuntu, uses box2d. Assumes .PC files are the standard interface since they are there. Everyone who wants to build this on another distribution has to work around it and upstream will maybe have to deal with complaints. That's why interfaces should ideally be defined upstream.

Cheers,
Tobias

Viele Grüße,
Tobias Hansen


On 3. März 2014 10:31:58 MEZ, Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
I still don't understand how it can be a problem for anyone to have something extra that you can choose to use or to ignore. Yeah, I probably can live with that, if it is so important. I just don't see the problem.

Greetings,
Miry


2014-03-03 10:18 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>:
On 01/03/2014 16:48, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> As the person who added the .pc file to our package, I strongly
> support having it in there even if upstream doesn't support it. I
> think it provides enough benefits for those of us who prefer using
> pkg-config in our building systems, and it doesn't have any drawbacks:
> if you don't want to use it, you can safely ignore it.

naďve question: can you get the advantages of .pc for building this
package by having it in the source but not distributing it in a binary
package? Or, alternatively, using a debian-prefix for the package name?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-games-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: [🔎] 531448D3.2020205@debian.org" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 531448D3.2020205@debian.org




Reply to: