Re: [PATCH 1/3] build: rename pkgconfig to libdpdk.pc

[Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 12:09 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:36:10PM +0100, luca.boccassi@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@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 <bluca@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.richardson@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