.h files in non-devel package?

[Jesse Keating]

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 00:48, Peter Gordon wrote:
> 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.

Except that we use the -devel packages as indications of what should be 
multilib.  Since your package could be used in multilib development, perhaps 
it would be better to name it -devel.  As it stands we have to maintain a 
whitelist of things that don't have a -devel name in order to make them 
multilib.  Such hand done lists are surely to break (as they have in the 
past) or fall out of sync between tools such as push scripts and update 
tools, etc...

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061128/07cc0e7f/attachment.sig>