On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 21:48 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 21:07 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > Thus Gérard is right, -devel subpackage is not needed. > > > > Why not call the main package -devel and forget the whole issue? > > In and of itself, it is *only* a development package, similar to the GNU > toolchain (gcc/binutils/etc). Hence, (as I see it) there is no need for > the -devel naming since it does not have a corresponding runtime-only > component. Right. Problems only arise in longer terms, if this package is being added apps. Then, a split into '*-devel" and 'nondevel" is helpful to avoid the apps pulling in other deps. Example: Imagine a c-library, being added c++ apps. If the "devel" and "nondevel" are not split, the package will unnecessarily pull in the c++-runtime deps (which could be a long chain of run-time libraries) Therefore, my recommendation is to name a "development" package "*-devel", though it's not technically strictly required. The GNU-toolchain is a bit different. It basically is a set of applications (Note applications, not libraries), being accompanied with some libraries packaged outside of the application packages. To the library packages, the same general considerations as to other libraries apply. They should be split into devel and non-devel. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
