Comment # 5 on bug 1187910 from Egbert Eich

(In reply to Peter Hill from comment #4)
> > I will see what I can do without getting complained at by rpmlint for not adhering to some packaging guideline.
> > At least I will make the packages containing these tools prerequisites of the -devel packages.
> 
> Thanks, that would be useful!

I've fixed this for netcdf-fortran and netcdf-cxx4 now. In both cases, *-config 
has been moved to the devel package. This way, I was able to get rid of two
binary packages.
Unfortunately, these won't be available until the netcdf build is fixed - which
is most likely a fallout of the gcc update.
If there isn't a fix upstream, yet, it may take a while for me to get to it.

> > The non-environment module versions were there before I started creating the
> > variant using environment modules so I kept them around. After all, I did not want
> > to disfranchise existing users. There was no netcdf-fortran package when I started
> > it. Having both variants makes the spec file even more complex and I did not need
> > non-environment module versions as this is usually not what one wants to use in an
> > HPC environment. 
> > Now, with containers, this may change. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it is a
> > good idea to go thru packages for building these.
> 
> Personally, I use these packages in a non-HPC environment, and having the
> non-module versions is definitely nice. It would help things feel more
> consistent at least.

Well, this is a community project, if someone would make a submission I'd
review it and if it's ok I'd accept it. 
But packaging is not my favorite pasttime and I don't need these for my work
either ...