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.
Fine by me, but I'd go one step further : ... But you will then need to
add this virtual provides to the main package : "Provides: %{name}-devel
= %{version}-%{release}".
That way other software requiring the package to build can simply
buildrequire thisname-devel and not worry about later changes that
would require a "real" -devel sub-package to be split out.
Last question remaining is if we want "Requires: pkgconfig" in such
packages? I don't, but pulling in pkgconfig is what would make most
sense...
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.91 (FC6 Test2) - Linux kernel
2.6.17-1.2617.2.1.fc6 Load : 0.25 0.55 0.65
--
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
