On Mon, Sep 26, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote:
> 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".
Yes, agreed.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
