* Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg.sonnenberger@web.de> schrieb:
No, upstream should do that (packagers should not have to touch any area of the sourcecode). And importing packages should _use_ it. (instead of old legacy cruft like the -config scripts or esoteric autofool macros).
You are misunderstanding what I say. Packagers should depend on pkg-config. If they don't, they are responsible for doing it by hand.
To make it a bit more clear: packagers (those folks who create the packages for certain distros) should (be able to) rely on the individual upstreams properly using the pkg-config infrastructure, so they have one common place for doing their necessary adaptions.
Why should some refuse to install such an fundamental tool ?
Have you ever looked at the pkg-config source? For something as fundamental as pkg-config, the source code is a mess. It has a local copy of at least half of glib1 for example...
Yes, I've worked on the codebase. It's not nice, but at least it works (probably better than it will after the already discussed transition to glib2 ;-p). Patches are always welcomed ;-) cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------