Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Alexander Larsson wrote:
>> 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?
Rhetorical: Is gcc, gdb, valgrind, nasm, memprof a subpackage of
something else? (hint: no)
Real question: How does being a subpackage affect this at all?
You mentioned gcc, gdb, etc... as a counter-argument. I was simply
highlighting a difference between them and this case... (hoping that it
went without saying, but...) in most(95%-99%?) cases, imo, a foo-devel
without a foo doesn't make much sense.
-- 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
