Re: pcp packaging split (was Re: [pcp] python-pcp git tree available)

[Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- "Mark Goodwin" <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> yes that's correct. Looks like Fedora would only require that we
> split pcp into pcp and pcp-devel (with pcp-debuginfo as a
> by-product).
> If we do this, we can still utilize the Debian package lists, but
> just combine some of them to arrive at a suitable pcp and pcp-devel
> split.
> 
> So, should we split the pcp RPM packaging into pcp and pcp-devel?
> Ditto for pcp-gui?

I think thats fine, lots of packages becomes painful to manage, so
just that simpler split out would be good IMO.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan