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 guess its possible that gtk-sharp2 will get devel docs in the future,
which would end up in a -devel package.
However, for the case of mono-nunit things are different. I don't think
putting the docs for nunit in a nunit-devel package. That would be
similar to putting the docs for binutils in a binutils-devel package.
(Of course, the binutils package has .h/.so/.a and doc files in the main
package.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's an unconventional misogynist cowboy who must take medication to keep him
sane. She's a pregnant gold-digging widow looking for love in all the wrong
places. 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
