Alexander Larsson wrote:
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.
Rhetorical: Is gcc, gdb, valgrind, nasm, memprof a subpackage of
something else? (hint: no)
-- Rex
--
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
