devel packages with only one .pc file

[Rex Dieter]

Alexander Larsson wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:02 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Alexander Larsson wrote:

>> >> OTOH, it could be argued that since it is already -devel type package,
>> >> (with apparently no runtime/non-devel bits), then it's name should
>> >> reflect that.
   
>> > You mean we should call things gcc-devel, gdb-devel, valgrind-devel,
>> > memprof-devel, nasm-devel, etc?

>> Rhetorical: Is gcc, gdb, valgrind, nasm, memprof a subpackage of
>> something else? (hint: no)

> Real question: How does being a subpackage affect this at all?

You mentioned gcc, gdb, etc... as a counter-argument.  I was simply 
highlighting a difference between them and this case... (hoping that it 
went without saying, but...) in most(95%-99%?) cases, imo, a foo-devel 
without a foo doesn't make much sense.

-- Rex