On 05/10/2014 07:31 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 13:50 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 10 May 2014 04:34, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 05/09/2014 09:32 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>>> On Fri, 9 May 2014 16:15:58 -0400 >>>> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think fixing upstream is a no-brainer. >>>> >>>> It indeed is, this is the goal; you can force them in multiple ways, >>>> some of which can be found on the Lua bug and previous discussion(s). >>>> >>>>> The controversy only exists when upstream refuses to cooperate (which >>>>> seems to be the case when we're one of six distros patching it). If >>>>> there are other situations where we supply our own files please speak >>>>> up. >>>> >>>> Not that I know of; the refusal to cooperate is what this is all about, >>>> see my last response to hwoarang before this mail for a short summary. >>>> Though, I think that the Lua maintainers can explain all the details... >>>> >>>>> When the only issue is maintainer laziness I could see fixing that in >>>>> a different way... >>>> >>>> It has always been an issue; we could always use more manpower, ... >>>> >>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Contributing_to_Gentoo >>>> >>> >>> Well to me it feels that gentoo specific .pc files is a similar problem >>> to any other patch that affects upstream code in order to make the >>> package compatible with gentoo. Some people may consider downstream pc >>> files more dangerous because reverse deps are affected. But really, if >>> there is no other alternative, we shouldn't be treating this as a >>> special case. We patch upstream packages all the time after all >> >> Exactly. I don't understand why this is an issue at all. Obviously, >> if upstream does not ship a .pc file or ships a broken one, we try >> to work with upstream to get it fixed on their end. If they are >> uncooperative, we fix it on our end. > > Adding a pkgconfig file is a bit of a special case. Some distros have a > habit of renaming and creating .pc files for various libraries.
Isn't this the same thing? If Debian creates/renames upstream pc files, and you use Debian as a development box, you have the same problem: Develop software which is not portable across distros. I have done very limited upstream development myself, but my opinion has always been that upstream developers who use Debian/Gentoo/Fedora/$FOOlinux as their dev environment shouldn't care about distro peculiarities. That's packagers' job, who are responsible to make the upstream software compatible with each distribution. But in > Gentoo, almost all pkgconfig files come from upstream with minimal > modification. So a .pc file that is specific to Gentoo is a rare > exception, and it could cause confusion for users who installed Gentoo > on their development machine and who wish to develop new portable > software. I don't see how this is a bad thing. This actually makes us look good in the sense that we stick to upstream code as much as possible. In an ideal world, all distros would be compatible :) -- Regards, Markos Chandras
