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

[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