libassuan-config is really unfriendly, so we should seriously kick upstream to provide a proper pkg-config file.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > libassuan-config is really unfriendly, so we should seriously kick upstream > to provide a proper pkg-config file. So why do you open a bug a downstream?
(In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #1) > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > > libassuan-config is really unfriendly, so we should seriously kick upstream > > to provide a proper pkg-config file. > > So why do you open a bug a downstream? So that someone with an account/communication channel to upstream will proxy it.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #1) > > (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0) > > > libassuan-config is really unfriendly, so we should seriously kick upstream > > > to provide a proper pkg-config file. > > > > So why do you open a bug a downstream? > > So that someone with an account/communication channel to upstream will proxy > it. Upstream against pkg-config, it was rejected many times. If you want to make another attempt please do.
Upstream has rejected pkgconfig for the last 6 years at least, why do you think he will start accepting it now? http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/add-pkgconfig-support-to-libksba-and-libassuan-td28978.html http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/pkg-config-support-for-libgcrypt-td27712.html http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-Generate-and-install-a-pkg-config-file-for-gpg-error-td22345.html If you can convince him to accept it, all the power to you; both alonbl and myself have argued in the past on the gnupg-dev lists for pkgconfig, and lost.