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

Re: Should -dev packages providing .pc files depend on pkg-config?

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 02:09:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I would say they are making it very inconvenient, but still not
>  forcing you. Push comes to shove, you can still build depend on a
>  specific version, and use an explicit -L.

That is correct, of course.  But if you're using a versioned depends
just because you're unwilling to use what the library packager considers
the appropriate way to link, your package deserves a bug IMO. ;-)

>         Yes, it means you have to track where upstream puts stuff, and
>  manually upgrade. Yes, it is more prone to error. Yes, using pkg-config
>  is _convenient_. Yews, it is probably advisable to use pkg-config. But
>  not mandatory.

If Debian's library maintainer says that this is the only way to link
the library, then IMO it is in fact mandatory.  Note that I can't think
of many practical situations where a libarary maintainer should be
allowed to say such a thing IMO. :-)

>         I still think if your ./debian/rules calls a program, and that
>  is not in Build-essential; it is your responsibility to arrange for it
>  to be available using a build dependency.

Yes, on that we agree, we only seem to have an academic disagreement
about concepts[1]. :-)


[1] Previously, I hadn't made up my mind, and I was open to the
    possibility of needing pkg-config as a Build-Depends in the -dev
    package.  I have now decided that it doesn't belong there (except
    when it is called by a script from that package).

I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: