.h files in non-devel package?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 17:56 +0100, Gérard Milmeister wrote:
> Is it absolutely necessary, that .h files go into a -devel package? I
> have a package stklos, which is a scheme interpreter, that does not
> contain any shared (or static) libraries, but some header files
> in /usr/share/stklos which are necessary if an extension is to be
> installed. I believe that it is confusing to split the header files off
> into an stklos-devel package, since stklos is a development package
> itself and not a library.
Why didn't you say so before? ;)

In general, *.h files belong into "development packages" containing the
libraries they specify the API of.

The actual name of this package is secondary. 

I'd recommend to use "*-devel" if it's really a mere devel package, not
containing any apps, to prevent future conflicts should a package be
added applications in futures.

If you really want to name the package "<name>" only, then I'd recommend
to at least add "Provides: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}" to
cater users expecting development files in "*-devel" packages.

>  However the reviewers of my package do not agree with me.
;)

Ralf