Re: pkg-config
Am Samstag, den 03.09.2005, 20:24 +1000 schrieb skaller:
> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 22:11 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > > Er... that's certainly not enforceable.
> >
> > > Sure it is. If they're not provided, then lintian fails
> > > the package, and the sponsors refuse to upload it,
> > > same as other policies.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Quite clearly it is perfectly *possible*
> as I claimed to enforce it.
>
> > The .pc names are set by upstream and we should not
> > diverge from them,
>
> The .pc names can be set by the Debian maintainer,
> and the original .pc file ignored even if upstream provides it.
>
> You may well be right this is not a good idea,
Sorry, but this is an IMO absolutely silly idea. Then you have to adjust
configure scripts, which run tests for these libs/applications. And a
lot of programs test for apps using pkg-config. Your idea breaks with
them.
> I'm not arguing it is. However a policy could
> be made and be enforced.
No. The only thing you maybe could do is to make a symlink, which
follows the Debian package name but links to the .pc file provided by
upstream. But I cannot see an advantage doing this. A configure script
using these .pc files will be specific to Debian. So this is IMO
useless.
> In particular, at present, pkg-config is plain useless
> because it isn't consistently supported.
I cannot agree. Can you give an example?
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: