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

Re: pkg-config-0.21-requires-private-fix.patch breaks Requires.private Cflags



On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:22 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:14 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 23:54 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> My question is what is the solution to this issue and what should both
> >> >> packagers and upstream do ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Since we have many upstream projects using Fedora to develop their
> >> >> software, I believe we can not afford to keep it broken.
> >> >
> >> > That is why it was fixed.
> >> >
> >> >  Mon Dec  8 2008 Matthias Clasen  <mclasen redhat com> - 1:0.23-6
> >> > - Remove a patch that is no longer necessary and causes more
> >> >  problems than it solves (#224148)
> >>
> >> You're probably really tired of hearing from me on this issue :)
> >>
> >> I think it would be nice to backport that fix to F9 and F10. Since the
> >> feature that patch was originally trying to address (bad pkg-config
> >> autoreqs) is not being used in those fedora releases, I think it would
> >> be good to get pkg-config back in line with the upstream behavior. As
> >> it stands, the patch is only serving to make the F9 and F10 pkg-config
> >> incompatible with other releases out in the wild. There's no gain from
> >> keeping that patch, IMO.
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > Will you keep your part of the deal this time and write a brief 'how to
> > use pkg-config for your project' manual ?
> 
> groff or html?

Whatever works for you. I think it would be nice to have this
information on the pkg-config wiki and in the installed pkg-config docs.
Not sure what that implies for the best format...


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