<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12-09-23 01:35 PM, Matt Turner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEdQ38HeXhvU=feB_fRwcaLoVLQiOLeU1PZHSv-YqrhuLs=5Gw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Gaetan,
The proto packages install their pc files in $(libdir)/pkgconfig, but
this leads to files being installed in /usr/lib32 or /usr/lib64 when
there's nothing ABI specific about them.
Would it be reasonable to install them to $(prefix)/share/pkgconfig instead?
Thanks,
Matt
</pre>
</blockquote>
This has been debated a few times on the list. I think there would
be a bigger consensus in favour of it today, but some sticky points
would remain. Here is a random excerpt I got from the list:<br>
<blockquote>
<pre>
Furthermore, <X11/Xfuncproto.h> and <X11/Xpoll.h> (from xproto) and
xtrans.pc have system-dependent substitutions, so they cannot be used
for cross-compiling.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Given the modular nature of the X packaging, and the wide variety of
OS/architecture, a per package approach rather than an all or
nothing approach might obtain a consensus. Any current issue would
not go away by virtue of an eventually single protocol package.<br>
</body>
</html>