Re: Box2D: providing .pc files even if upstream does not?
I'm just saying there's a difference between the average bugfix and
changing an interface. I'm not saying don't add .pc files in this
particular case.
Cheers,
Tobias
On 03/03/2014 11:18 AM, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:debian-devel-games-request@lists.debian.org>
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org <mailto:listmaster@lists.debian.org>
> Archive: [🔎] 531448D3.2020205@debian.org">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 531448D3.2020205@debian.org
>
>
>
Reply to: