On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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)
I'm aware that it is a subpackage, yes.
Real question: How does being a subpackage affect this at all?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's a fiendish chivalrous firefighter with nothing left to lose. She's a
beautiful cigar-chomping mercenary in the wrong place at the wrong time. 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
