Bug 1809043

Summary: zita-convolver-devel lacks a package config file
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Johan Vromans <jvromans>
Component: zita-convolverAssignee: Guido Aulisi <guido.aulisi>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 33CC: brendan.jones.it, guido.aulisi, nando, oget.fedora
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-01-11 14:08:43 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
pkgconfig for zita-convolver
none
Suggested enhancement for the spec file none

Description Johan Vromans 2020-03-02 10:15:24 UTC
Created attachment 1666930 [details]
pkgconfig for zita-convolver

Description of problem:

Package zita-convolver-devel contains the include file and library to use zita-convolver in applications. However, it does not contain the associated pkgconfig file.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

4.0.3

How reproducible: Always.

Steps to Reproduce:

1. pkg-config zita-convolver --libs

Actual results:

Package zita-convolver was not found in the pkg-config search path.

Expected results:

-lzita-convolver

Additional info:

The attached pkgconfig file seems to work most of the times but I'm not a pkgconfig wizard...

Comment 1 Guido Aulisi 2020-03-02 10:57:26 UTC
zita-convolver never shipped a pkgconfig file, upstream tarball does not contain it.

I will ask if out policy permits the creation of a pkgconfig file and if permitted I will add one; the one you attached seems ok.

Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2020-03-02 11:45:01 UTC
The attached .pc file contains hardcoded values, on the other hand. The upstream project can't ship the file without further modifications. And since the upstream source tarball doesn't use Autotools but only includes a hardcoded Makefile, more work will be needed to generate a valid .pc file and fill in values based on build-time variables.

Generally, the benefit of .pc files only starts when depending projects start using pkg-config to check for library existance, version, cflags, ldflags and possibly other variables. For very simple libs with trivial cflags/ldflags, the benefit is very small, almost negligible.

Comment 3 Johan Vromans 2020-03-02 12:25:13 UTC
Yes...

Main problem is that certain projects use pkg-config to check for the existence of libraries. And if that is buried deep down customized config scripts it is hard to repair.

I can find my way around it, but others may run into the same problems.

Comment 4 Johan Vromans 2020-03-03 11:01:20 UTC
Created attachment 1667157 [details]
Suggested enhancement for the spec file

Is this more useful?

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2020-08-11 15:26:47 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 33 development cycle.
Changing version to 33.