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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
