On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 07:18 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 September 2006 05:07, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >> The bug above proposes to further split out this .pc file into a
> >> separate subpackage. However, the gapi package itself will never be
> >> installed on a user system, and no developer needing it would ever not
> >> want the .pc files. So, what use is splitting out this .pc file?
> >
> > This bug may be a misunderstanding of what the package actually does. Given
> > that gapi is already a "-devel" type package, I think its acceptable to keep
> > the pc file there.
>
> OTOH, it could be argued that since it is already -devel type package,
> (with apparently no runtime/non-devel bits), then it's *name* should
> reflect that.
You mean we should call things gcc-devel, gdb-devel, valgrind-devel,
memprof-devel, nasm-devel, etc?
Sounds pretty silly to me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's a sword-wielding soccer-playing Green Beret on the edge. She's a cynical
renegade lawyer who believes she is the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian
queen. 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
