static libraries/devel subpackages

[Ville Skyttä]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 17:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 18:36 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:49 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > >
> > > > * when the package consists only in static libraries, no binaries nor dynamic
> > > >  libraries what should be done? (I think that the principal package should
> > > >  not distribute any file such that there is only a -devel package. It is
> > > >  what libcaca does.)
> > > 
> > > Seems reasonable to me...
> > 
> > Ditto.
> > 
> > > Could one not just name the main package 
> > > "foo-devel" then, with no "main" package whatsoever?
> > 
> > Just leave it at "foo", that'll result in less mess when upstream one
> > day introduces stuff that doesn't belong in the -devel package.
> Hmm? - IMO, the opposite is true.
> 
> IMO, the only viable approaches are:
> 1. Let foo.spec produce foo-devel.rpm only.
> or
> 2. Let foo.spec produce foo.rpm only, but then let it
> Provide: foo-devel = %version-%release

Yes, fully agreed.  But that's not what I was talking about in the
above, nor do I think it's what the OP asked (note _main_ package).

Instead, I believe it was a question about providing _only_
foo-devel.spec, foo-devel...src.rpm and foo-devel...$arch.rpm, which I
don't think is a good idea.  Better to have foo.spec, foo...src.rpm,
foo-devel...$arch.rpm and the Provides for the main package in -devel.