devel packages with only one .pc file

[Mike A. Harris]

Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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.

xorg-x11-proto-devel - contains X extension headers used by various
                        things.  They are only used for development, and
                        come this way from upstream.  This is the only
                        sensible way to ship them.

xorg-x11-xtrans-devel - contains the source code for Xtrans, which is
                         included by the server and other things that use
                         Xtrans at build time.  There is no library.

Both of these make perfect sense.  I'm sure there are others.


Xtrans really should be a shared library mind you, but it is not, and
so of course it has to be packaged for what it is, rather than what it
could be.



-- 
Mike A. Harris * Open Source Advocate * http://mharris.ca

Linux fans:  Check out Tym Morrison's hit new heavy metal single
"Only Linux" at http://tymmorrison.com - If you would like to support
this great Canadian metal artist and open source fanatic, you can buy
a copy of Tym's Solo Project CD at the "Buy CD" link on his site.