On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:56 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 12:43 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > Perhaps in the case of mono, where the main package has no
> > difference
> > > between the runtime and the development files (one in the same) then
> > > the .pc file can stay in the main package. I'm OK with that.
> >
> > So, can we change the packaging guidelines to say this? (Otherwise
> > I'll
> > be flooded with more bug reports.)
>
> You are positive that your .pc files don't list any further software
> requirements that might be development in nature? If they did, this
> rule wouldn't apply. I would think that it would have to be something
> like this:
>
> If A) your package has no distinction between runtime and development
> libraries (example mono .dll files), and B) your .pc file lists no other
> development requirements, than your .pc file can go in the main package
> and not a sub -devel package.
What if it depends on another package that satisfies this? (I.E. that
has the pc file in the main package)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's an immortal alcoholic gangster who knows the secret of the alien
invasion. She's a manipulative paranoid widow prone to fits of savage,
blood-crazed rage. They fight crime!
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
