https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=993324 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > We can Ah, that's the connection between "can" => "shouldn't". Yes, it would be possible to not build "ell-devel" but just "ell". There are no naming guidelines about it. The FPC considers it okay when an implicitly development related package doesn't add "-devel" to its name, if there is no need for a package split between run-time and build-time files. E.g. the package of a compiler or similar tool may contain headers (and even libs) without becoming a -devel package. Whether that is good and convenient also for pure API packages is debatable. The thousands of -devel packages in the collection are considered fully optional and unnecessary at run-time, so one may remove them from an installation for various reasons. So far, it has been possible to use tools like rpmdev-rmdevelrpms or simple RPM queries to do that. The guidelines even comment on that with regard to removing all developer-related packages in an attempt at finding missing build requirements. It's helpful if header-only APIs are stored in -devel packages, too. > And just add virtual provides. For a non-virtual package name, they are automatic and versioned and even use %_isa. Adding them manually complicates matters. Introducing virtual package names bears a risk, too. Packagers could choose _either_ name to depend on. One packager will use ell-devel out of consistency with other build requirements, another will not even notice the virtual Provides and use "ell". And if you wanted to submit a query on BuildRequires, you would need to consider all available package names. Less convenient. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5DGa2roBhp&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review