On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 12:09 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:36:10PM +0100, luca.bocca...@gmail.com > wrote: > > From: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> > > > > In Debian and Ubuntu we have been shipping a pkgconfig file for > > DPDK > > for more than a year now, and the filename is libdpdk.pc. > > A few downstream projects, like OVS and Collectd, have adopted the > > use of libdpdk.pc in their build systems as well. > > In order to maintain backward compatibility, rename the file from > > DPDK.pc to libdpdk.pc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> > > --- > > I find the 'lib' bit strange, but if that is what is already out > there, > then we should keep it for compatibility.
Not sure where the original name came from, it's been like that for a few years - it might have been my fault :-) In Debian/Ubuntu libraries development headers, unversioned shared object symlinks and static archives always ship in packages named libfoo[api-ver]-dev. This is strictly enforced by policy. We have libdpdk-dev for example. Then, usually, pkg-config files follow the same naming convention, so that if you want to build against libfoo-dev you use pkg-config libfoo. This makes it nice and predictable. But IIRC it's not enforced, and not universally followed. > In future, we might create two pkgconfig files to transition over to > a > new name, but to start with lets use what is being looked for by our > dependencies. > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> Even just a symlink should work fine, at least it does with the pkg- config I have on Debian. Should not cause issues on any implementation. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
