On Sun, Sep 25, 2005, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote: > > > Packages that supply .pc files should require pkgconfig. > > This was my first impression some time ago, too. But I think it not > really the case. IMHO instead packages who _USE_ .pc files should > require pkgconfig. The problem is that even small harmless libs provide > .pc files and there is no need to require pkgconfig there. OTOH > pkgconfig requires glib2 and some others to compile and this way is not > what one would count as harmless. Also, many packages provide xxx.pc > files just as a new-style goody in addition to the old-style xxx-config > files. Requiring pkgconfig there is also a little bit too much.
Ok, i reverted my change. It is pkgconfig that has to be blamed. Instead of letting packages place obscure files with questionable content in the wild there should be something like "pkg-config --install" or "pkg-config --add". (mk) -- Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47 >> Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) << ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
