On 03.03.2014 10:18, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > 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. > > naïve 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? I think this is a binary decision. The .pc files are only useful if they are shipped in the corresponding -dev package, so I fear it's not possible to do justice to everybody. Since I couldn't find much information about similar situations, I thought I'd better check with the list before I'm going to upload something. It seems the majority is mildly in favor, some even fiercely, to support pkg-config. :) Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature