Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (165 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Could we decide on an official policy about pkgconfig() style BuildRequires?
On 10 July 2012 07:53, Ralf Lang <lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 04.07.2012 16:27, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
So you need an openSUSE specific hack... that lets you add extra
provides with a single extra line. mkbaselibs could be modified to
automatically add "pkgconfig(X)(32bit)" provides to them if that
would be really necessary.

Wasn't the argument for this potentially tedious rewrite that it's
more cross-distro?

Is one of two arguments. And just after I already said: "But really,
this is sooo openSUSE specific that I don't care if pkgconfig(X) style
provides are not used in these cases."

Really, just forget about the multilib argument. Sure, not
surprisingly the openSUSE specific feature breaks cross-distro
compatibility. But since it's something that is used by X packages
while there are 1000X packages using libraries without a pkg-config at
all it is totally negligible.
__ANY__ "but in the *specific* case X you can't use pkgconfig()
BuildRequires" is not important because in the *common* case of a
library not providing a .pc file we already have _exactly_ the same
"problem".


Anyway, what I wanted was to define a policy. But seeing the reactions
I don't think that's going to be possible.

The only real argument I saw against it was the "So we'd have a mix of
ways anyway which I do not like very much", that I don't consider a
problem. So I will continue with the status quo: I will use
pkgconfig() BuildRequires in my request just hoping nobody rejects
them because of that.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups