On 15.08.24 09:20, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 06:05:19PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> That looks good to me. Does anyone have a different opinion? If not,
>> I'll go ahead and commit (but not backport) this change.
>
> What is the rationale not to backpatch this? The error message changes,
> but we do not translate configure output, so is this a problem/project
> policy to never change configure output in the back-branches?
>
> If the change is too invasive, would something like the initial patch I
> suggested (i.e., in the absense of pkg-config, add a more targetted
> error message) be acceptable for the back-branches?
But it's not just changing an error message, it's changing the logic
that leads to the error message. Have we really thought through all the
combinations here? I don't know. So committing for master and then
seeing if there is any further feedback seems most prudent.
(I'm not endorsing either patch version here, just commenting on the
process.)
