On 07/28/2011 05:27 PM, Denis Arnaud wrote: > Hello, > > we would like to package a C++ header-only project, namely tclap > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683591). > The relevant guideline is to be found on: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > > The question is: > 1. Should the header files go into the main package, removing the need > for a -devel sub-package? The reason would be that that package is a > development package only, like gcc for instance. > 2. Or should the header files go into the -devel sub-package, leaving > the main package almost empty (only the README, COPYING documentation > would go into the main package), much like what is done for Boost > header-only components? It's basically up to your preference. I'd package it into a *-devel (sub-) package or at least let the "base-package" additionally provide "*-devel". This would help users of the package should the package be extended in future and a split between "base" and "devel" be necessary. > In either case, then, since header files are architecture independent, This assumption may apply in your case, but does not apply in general. Header files may well be arch-dependent or the package only support a subset of architectures, > I > guess that the corresponding package should be 'noarch'. However, a > pkgconfig (.pc) file is delivered together with the package; and rpmlint > complains that pkgconfig files should be delivered by > architecture-dependent sub-packages only. Should you leave rpmlint > complaining quietly? Where is the *.pc file being installed to rsp. what is rpmlint's complaint? If the package is "noarch", the *.pc should be installed into %{datadir}/pkgconfig, if it's "arch'ed" the *pc should be installed into %{_libdir}/pkgconfig. Ralf -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
